tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84846361215289817602017-12-11T14:10:48.816+11:00Some AirEtwas Luft = Some AirKetanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.comBlogger142125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-74497800631868509702016-04-20T12:39:00.004+10:002016-04-20T12:40:07.462+10:00Go and visit my new blogHey everyone,<br /><br />I've discontinued this blog, and I'm now based at&nbsp;<a href="https://ketanjoshi.co/">https://ketanjoshi.co/</a><br /><br />Please go there to check out my new stuff.<br /><br />Hugs,<br />KetanKetanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-83308909566267062812016-02-15T13:43:00.001+11:002016-02-15T13:43:26.819+11:00Why I suspect Catalyst's WiFi episode will hurt - The perpetual story of fear<div dir="ltr">The ABC's primary science journalism series, <i><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/">Catalyst</a></i>, is due to air a program warning of the health risks of wireless networking, this Tuesday night, on the 16th of February.<br /><br />I haven't seen it yet, obviously. But I have, in a way. I feel like I've been watching it for five straight years, on repeat, with tiny variations in content and wording. It's another tiny chapter in the perpetual, thematically consistent presentation of a safe new technology as something we ought to fear. But scientific research points to these stories as being a major contributor to the phenomenon they're examining, creating a self-sustaining loop of fear and anxiety. Asking questions is fine, but this style of asking questions is causing demonstrable harm.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><b>Why it will hurt</b><br /><br />A previous iteration of this perpetual program: in 2007, the BBC's <i>Panorama</i>, an investigative current affairs show, aired an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&amp;v=ewdikNQhjUo">episode</a> about the health risks of WiFi. It <a href="http://www.badscience.net/2007/05/so-simple-a-child-could-spot-it/">relied</a> heavily on an 'electrosmog' pressure group, and attacked experts. The episode spurred a barrage of complaints, which were <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7122230.stm">upheld</a> by the BBC's editorial complaints unit. Ben Goldacre, a UK science writer, wrote about it extensively, <a href="http://www.badscience.net/2007/05/leaked-letter-bbc-panorama-wi-fi/">here</a>.<br /><br />More interestingly, that episode of Panorama was used in a scientific study examining the impact of misinformation on symptom reporting in people who claim to be hypersensitive to eletromagnetic radiation. The <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23438710">study</a> was done by Witthoft and Rubin, in 2013.<br /><br />Participants watched the Panorama WiFi episode, and a control film. They were then exposed to a 'sham' wifi signal - essentially, a placebo. People who watched the episode were significantly more likely to report symptoms from the fake wifi signal than those who hadn't:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"82 (54%) of the 147 participants reported symptoms which they attributed to the sham exposure. The experimental film increased: EMF related worries (β=0.19; P=.019); post sham exposure symptoms among participants with high pre-existing anxiety (β=0.22; P=.008); the likelihood of symptoms being attributed to the sham exposure among people with high anxiety (β=.31; P=.001); and the likelihood of people who attributed their symptoms to the sham exposure believing themselves to be sensitive to EMF (β=0.16; P=.049)"</blockquote><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MHNegyEVAlg/VsEL4ynntOI/AAAAAAACnlg/q1T3_y8deVI/s1600/results1.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MHNegyEVAlg/VsEL4ynntOI/AAAAAAACnlg/q1T3_y8deVI/s400/results1.png" width="328" /></a></div><br />The presentation of information can hurt. This isn't controversial anymore. Electromagnetic fields are a particularly tempting contender for this perpetual warning of impending suffering. Another study, from 2010, found the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20538519">same thing</a>, as <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20004299">did this study</a>. A&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23799038">study</a> in 2013, by Eldridge-Thomas and Rubin, examined newspaper reports, and found that:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Articles which quoted someone with [intolerance to electromagnetic fields] were significantly more likely to report an electromagnetic cause and to present unproven treatments. Those which used a scientist as a source were more likely to present a non-electromagnetic cause for the condition. The widespread poor reporting we identified is disappointing and has the potential for to encourage more people to misattribute their symptoms to electromagnetic fields. Scientists should remain engaged with the media to counteract this effect"</blockquote><br />Shockingly, <b>72%</b> of the content they examined blamed electromagnetic fields, despite <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21769898">there being no evidence</a> to suggest these are the physical cause of the phenomenon they describe, and plenty of evidence demonstrating that people report symptoms regardless of the presence of EMFs.<br /><br />Suggestions and expectations of forecasted sickness can cause real sickness. People who suffer from anxiety and depression are at greater risk. This is a real thing that can be measured and published, and it's being maintained by this perpetual story: this new thing might&nbsp;<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-were-not-all-being-pickled-in-deadly-radiation-from-smartphones-and-wifi-41980">hurt</a>&nbsp;you.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><b>What it will look like</b><br /><br /></div><div dir="ltr">This is the format I predict the show will take:<br /><br /></div><div dir="ltr">- One or two 'experts', and one or two 'sufferers', all claim the technology is causing sickness. These people will be on-screen for the majority of the segment. <br /><br /></div><div dir="ltr">- A brief statement of what the majority of scientists think, maybe at the end, and only briefly.<br /><br /></div><div dir="ltr">- End with a reassertion of uncertainty: 'time will tell, but for now, be cautious'.<br /><br /></div><div dir="ltr">Catalyst's promotional segments for the story already suggest this format:<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">Free internet access is great but can WIFI exposure lead to cancer? Next week on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ABCCatalyst?src=hash">#ABCCatalyst</a>, 8pm <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCTV">@ABCTV</a></div>— Catalyst (@ABCcatalyst) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCcatalyst/status/696989692688932864">February 9, 2016</a></blockquote><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">Free Wi-Fi, too good to be true? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ABCCatalyst?src=hash">#ABCCatalyst</a> looks at the health risks associated with Wi-Fi Tuesday 8:00pm <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCTV">@ABCTV</a> <a href="https://t.co/SxtTcZEHU1">pic.twitter.com/SxtTcZEHU1</a></div>— Catalyst (@ABCcatalyst) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCcatalyst/status/697306720461127680">February 10, 2016</a></blockquote><br />The promo features an interview with <a href="https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-disconnect-between-cell-phone-fears-and-science/">Dr Devra Davis</a>, who's an outspoken <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devra_Davis">critic</a> of electromagnetic fields, and is currently on a tour around Australia, presenting the health risks of wireless devices:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BfvXsC1nwXY/VsETVpD-dzI/AAAAAAACnmE/DQJaV-Cgtk8/s1600/dd.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BfvXsC1nwXY/VsETVpD-dzI/AAAAAAACnmE/DQJaV-Cgtk8/s400/dd.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />A scientist from the Cancer Council, Professor Bernard Stewart, <a href="http://www.amta.org.au/articles/Leading-cancer-expert-accuses-Devra-Davis-of-raising-community-anxiety-over-unjustified-claims-on-mobile-phone-safety">said</a> “I am deeply disturbed by this (Dr Davis’ claims) because I do not think there is any medical or scientific research that justifies the anxiety of the community that is being raised. Clearly, Dr Davis is in the business of raising concern”. 'Patchd', a new device that claims to protect you from the terror of electromagnetism, was sending invites on behalf of Dr Davis (the tweet was since deleted). The company is now promoting the upcoming episode:<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">Company selling magic phone chips sent me a personal invite to WiFi scare lecture featured on @ABCCatlyst this week <a href="https://t.co/x0ji06UfI3">pic.twitter.com/x0ji06UfI3</a></div>— Dr Darren Saunders (@whereisdaz) <a href="https://twitter.com/whereisdaz/status/699021809459462144">February 15, 2016</a></blockquote><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">Dangers of Wi-fi and mobile phone radiation. ABC Catalyst, 8pm AEST. Must watch television.</div>— patchd (@getpatchd) <a href="https://twitter.com/getpatchd/status/697252286574100480">February 10, </a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/getpatchd/">2016</a></blockquote><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/getpatchd/"><img alt="https://www.facebook.com/getpatchd/" border="0" height="313" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9mBR6l4v5xw/VsEZxxTgduI/AAAAAAACnmY/Mku1xv5G3mc/s320/patchd.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />It's going to be interesting to see whether Catalyst explores the links between this new company selling its wares, and any affiliations their interviewees might have. Not to say that there are any, but it's well worth asking the question.<br /><br />There are a few things that I suspect Catalyst will almost certainly include, that serve as the vital ingredients for creating fear and anxiety, including the simulation of scientific uncertainty. These are 'fright factors', as explored in <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13698575.2013.776015#.VsEalPl95pg">this paper</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"A diagnostic checklist of fright factors has helped to explain why some environmental health risks are more likely to trigger alarm, anxiety or outrage than others, independently of scientific estimates of their seriousness (Bennett 1999). Media stories that contain a large number of these fright factors provoke a strong public reaction (Bennett 2010). These fright factors have been shown in newspaper coverage of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, avian flu, biosolids and genetically modified crops (Burke 2004, Goodman and Goodman 2006, Abdelmutti and Hoffman-Goetz 2009, Fung et al. 2011)"</blockquote><br />The factors are:<br /><br />- Involuntary exposure<br />- Inequitably distributed<br />- Inescapable by taking personal precautions<br />- Cause hidden or irreversible damage<br />- Pose particular danger to small children or pregnant women<br />- Arousing dread due to death, illness or injury<br />- Damage to identifiable victims<br />- Poorly understood by science<br />- Subject to contradictory statements from responsible sources<br />- Arise from unfamiliar or novel source<br />- Result from man-made sources<br /><br />The research paper applied the above factors to media coverage of wind turbines in Canada - a technology that's an <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-power-of-suggestion-generates-wind-farm-symptoms-12833">precise analogue</a> of the same perpetual fear-based story: you should be scared of this new thing, because scientists are uncertain and some people feel sick.<br /><br />In fact, comments posted on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ABCCatalyst/videos/vb.203618989652308/1275963905751139/?type=2&amp;theater">Catalyst's Facebook page</a> already anticipate the episode will confirm and reinforce the fears held by people who claim sensitivity to electromagnetism:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" height="364" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbKGhH8UcAAH-3s.png" width="400" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>Some of these themes already dominate the preview (include the classic image of a device radiating evil green waves), but I suspect the full episode will adhere more closely to the checklist of 'fright factors' than to the current&nbsp;<a href="http://www.amta.org.au/files/AMTA-position-on-The-Scientific-Consensus-2013.pdf">scientific consensus</a>&nbsp;on the safety of wireless technology.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QXWARsxvn5E/VsEhq2c_hFI/AAAAAAACnmo/rzyJ23_ylvk/s1600/Screen-Shot-2013-09-04-at-10.28.44-AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="201" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QXWARsxvn5E/VsEhq2c_hFI/AAAAAAACnmo/rzyJ23_ylvk/s320/Screen-Shot-2013-09-04-at-10.28.44-AM.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The 'inescapable threat' graphic (I made this collection for <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/why-new-technology-often-attracts-bad-science-74527">this</a>)</td></tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iEH6r4mBoSI/VsEh_mmmpcI/AAAAAAACnms/to6kZZAj_Io/s1600/cat44.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="187" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iEH6r4mBoSI/VsEh_mmmpcI/AAAAAAACnms/to6kZZAj_Io/s320/cat44.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Catalyst's promo, featuring the same theme of 'inescapable threat'&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table><br />There's a chance I'm wrong, but I'd posit it's not a big chance. They might take the opportunity to fully explore the serious implications of expectations of harm, and psychological factors, with the preview cleverly baiting viewers expecting a scare-story on WiFi. Perhaps the warnings of harm are accurate, or even understated - WiFi might be reaching aggressively into our skulls and frying our neurons. In which case one would expect the purveyors of these warnings to be publishing research, and talking to the scientific community, rather than talking to the media and selling books. Perception is flawed. If we want to be sure, we place our theories in the imperfect but demonstrably useful crucible of the scientific method.<br /><br />I'm not optimistic - the story is a perpetual one, updated to serve whatever anxieties dominate current discourse. At the moment, it's nervousness about the <a href="https://medium.com/@ketanj0/smartphone-syndrome-ecc7b8cd8d28#.tt3nogf67">prevalence of smartphones in public spaces</a>. Someone needs to jam a thick, jagged stick into the spokes of this wheel, because it causes real suffering, and it needs to end. Here's hoping Tuesday's episode doesn't add to the perpetual state of fear around new technology.&nbsp;</div>Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-28518677993389436082016-01-31T12:33:00.000+11:002016-02-01T08:48:54.106+11:00Why clean tech inspires a new magnitude of wrongness<i>Edit 01/02/2016 - I knew I'd stuff something up! Thanks commenters for pointing out I over-estimated fuel consumption - it's 22l per 100km (I thought 22/km seemed big..but I know little about truckin'). It's fixed below, and all reliant values updated - kind of enhances my point :)&nbsp;</i><br /><br />Renewable energy, presented as environmentally friendly and clean, must turn out to be harmful to humans and the environment. There's an ironic, vindicating righteousness in believing, as intensely as you possibly can, that technology used to reduce environmental impact actually increases it.<br /><br />This is what drives monumentally ludicrous runaway myths, like the now-infamous '<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/no-wind-farms-are-not-causing-global-warming/2012/04/30/gIQAMl2GsT_blog.html">WIND FARMS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING</a>' - a particularly frenzied, unhinged example. It spread virally, despite desperate <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/feb/07/wind-farms-climate-change-weather">pleas</a> from the scientist who did the original work.<br /><br />Continuing this trend, any nugget of information that suggests fossil fuels are involved in the production, maintenance or operation of clean energy is decontextualised, mutated beyond recognition and spread with absolute glee within the anti-renewable, climate-skeptic social media landscape. It's this wonderful feeling of righteous irony they seek, and critics of clean technology and climate skeptics will manufacture amazing new magnitudes of wrongness just to grasp that emotion for a fleeting second.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/posts/480644518796854:0">The latest example:</a><br /><div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/posts/480644518796854" data-width="500"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"HUMAN STUPIDITY KNOWS NO LIMITS<br />The entire rationale for wind turbines is to stop global warming by reducing the amount of Co2 being returned to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.<br />In the attached picture, recently taken in Sweden, freezing cold weather has caused the rotor blades of a wind turbine to ice up bringing the blades to a complete stop.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">To fix the "problem" a helicopter is employed (burning aviation fuel) to spray hot water (which is heated in the frigid temperatures using a truck equipped with a 260 kW oil burner) on the blades of the turbine to de-ice them.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">The aviation fuel, the diesel for the truck, and the oil burned to heat the water, could produce more electricity (at the right time to meet demand) than the unfrozen wind turbine could ever produce. (Before it freezes up again).&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">The attached picture is a metaphor of the complete insanity of the climate change debate.<br />In decades to come this one photo alone with sum up an era of stupidity, when rational thought, logic and commonsense was abandoned and immense wealth and resources needlessly sacrificed."</blockquote><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vVpO3fVxfDQ/Vq1mNMdF_7I/AAAAAAACnO8/F-Kzhei4f0o/s1600/kellypost.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="358" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vVpO3fVxfDQ/Vq1mNMdF_7I/AAAAAAACnO8/F-Kzhei4f0o/s400/kellypost.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /></div></div>The lengthy post by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/?fref=nf">Liberal MP Craig Kelly</a> was quickly republished on a variety of climate skeptic blogs and social media accounts:<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">Saturday Silliness – wind turbine photo of the&nbsp;year <a href="https://t.co/0z17JruFdl">https://t.co/0z17JruFdl</a> <a href="https://t.co/qkaLf3L31V">pic.twitter.com/qkaLf3L31V</a></div>— Watts Up With That (@wattsupwiththat) <a href="https://twitter.com/wattsupwiththat/status/691031707357564928">January 23, 2016</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump">@realDonaldTrump</a> OMG!!! WIND TURBINE FREEZES!! Helicopter filled with fuel and tub of hot water used to unfreeze! <a href="https://t.co/hGuVALaMV1">https://t.co/hGuVALaMV1</a></div>— Christian (@Christianlord12) <a href="https://twitter.com/Christianlord12/status/691728281452699648">January 25, 2016</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">Wind turbine froze up, being thawed with a helicopter. <a href="https://t.co/QjiCSMhyOy">https://t.co/QjiCSMhyOy</a></div>— Jeff Terry (@nuclear94) <a href="https://twitter.com/nuclear94/status/691340603825725440">January 24, 2016</a></blockquote><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">De-icing a Swedish wind turbine using a helicopter and hot water. What a brilliant way to cut emissions. <a href="https://t.co/ERODdloy0l">pic.twitter.com/ERODdloy0l</a></div>— Roger Helmer (@RogerHelmerMEP) <a href="https://twitter.com/RogerHelmerMEP/status/692019280603410432">January 26, 2016</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <br /><br />Okay. So everyone is angry because a helicopter that uses fossil fuels was used to melt ice that had frozen wind turbine in Sweden.<br /><br />It's not mentioned or link to in Kelly's original Facebook post, but the original seems to be a Swedish outlet called <i>NyTeknik</i>, an outlet that covers new technology and innovation. <a href="https://translate.google.com.au/translate?sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;js=y&amp;prev=_t&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyteknik.se%2Fnyheter%2Fenergi_miljo%2Fvindkraft%2Farticle3877156.ece&amp;edit-text=">The article</a>, translated into English roughly by Google, states that:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Glaciated rotor blades are the scourge of wind turbine owners in cold climates. Alpine Helicopter in Constance has developed a new way to kick-start production when the ice forces the turbines stop: a helicopter that sprays hot water."</blockquote><br />You can read the full calculations at the bottom of this post, but shown below is a comparison between the emissions from de-icing the wind turbine, and the emissions saved by two day's worth of power output:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dov5kRxmHog/Vq6BMuemMSI/AAAAAAACnPY/dUw_9C2k_Mg/s1600/kellychartfixed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dov5kRxmHog/Vq6BMuemMSI/AAAAAAACnPY/dUw_9C2k_Mg/s1600/kellychartfixed.jpg" /></a></div><br />It's tricky, really, when someone is <i>this wrong</i>. Craig Kelly believes the turbine can't pay back the emissions in in the lifespan of the machine, which is 25 years. But with some decent wind, it pays back the emissions in <i><b>22 minutes</b></i>.<br /><br />Kelly's belief is 597,273 times larger than the actual figure. This would be like estimating that Malcolm Turnbull is 36,433,636 years old, or that Kanye West is 1,027,309.091 metres tall. This isn't the sort of&nbsp;error we make in our every day life.<br /><br />This is unfathomable in scale, and it happens all the time. Consider Alan Jones, who on the ABC's Q&amp;A <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/please-stop-making-things-up-about.html">claimed</a> that wind power costs $1,502,000 per megawatt hour. It's actually $74. That's 20,297 times larger than reality ("by my reckoning, the average dog will live for 263,864 years" - Alan Jones, probably).<br /><br />Of course, the whole argument itself, around de-icing using a helicopter, is already outdated. The wind farm in question has 30 new turbines on the way, each with a dual de-icing system installed in the blades - that information was <a href="https://translate.google.com.au/translate?sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;js=y&amp;prev=_t&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyteknik.se%2Fnyheter%2Fenergi_miljo%2Fvindkraft%2Farticle3877156.ece&amp;edit-text=">in the article</a> from which Kelly sourced his image, but left out of his post.<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />There's an interesting dichotomy here. Take a cursory glance at the 1,254 comments on Kelly's original post, and you'll see a common theme in all those who agree with his position: 'greenies', 'warmists' and 'leftards' are blind followers - dead-eyed, unquestioning sheep:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ldMLKnxkRmc/Vqwl8ferthI/AAAAAAACnOA/B5Khx2xr0_U/s1600/kelly1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="147" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ldMLKnxkRmc/Vqwl8ferthI/AAAAAAACnOA/B5Khx2xr0_U/s400/kelly1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yuvRoTaONGQ/VqwscPRsJ0I/AAAAAAACnOQ/-ry7ZP4gGcE/s1600/kelly2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="85" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yuvRoTaONGQ/VqwscPRsJ0I/AAAAAAACnOQ/-ry7ZP4gGcE/s400/kelly2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vcwB-atTQ-I/VqwscjrCkXI/AAAAAAACnOY/5_BuXZWKRig/s1600/kelly3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="96" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vcwB-atTQ-I/VqwscjrCkXI/AAAAAAACnOY/5_BuXZWKRig/s400/kelly3.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S_UCgBH6QFs/VqwscTIWcDI/AAAAAAACnOU/jR3CL9oLvMc/s1600/kelly4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S_UCgBH6QFs/VqwscTIWcDI/AAAAAAACnOU/jR3CL9oLvMc/s400/kelly4.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />It takes <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.htm">5-8 months</a> to pay back the embedded energy in a wind turbine. Human activity emits <a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm">100 times more CO2</a> than all volcanoes on the planet (let alone just one). They're all very wrong, but they frame their wrongness as a disgusted reproach to a group they perceive as persistently wrong, and blind to reality.<br /><br />Don't start feeling good about yourself. This is something that crops up on either side of the political spectrum (though I'd argue it's certainly more prevalent on the conservative side). You've probably seen this image:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2FJoe_Barton_meme_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2FJoe_Barton_meme_1.jpg" height="385" width="400" /></a></div><br />Quite a few people sent it to me - it went <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=images&amp;vertical=default&amp;q=joe%20barton%20wind&amp;src=typd">viral</a>. But <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/15/facebook-posts/widely-shared-meme-oversimplifies-joe-bartons-2009/">Barton never said that</a>. His point was certainly contentious and his hypothetical was pretty silly, but that's besides the point - the meme was <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/bartonwind.asp">inaccurate</a>, and unfair. The post digging into its veracity was barely shared at all.<br /><br />So, there are cognitive mechanics underpinning this phenomenon. We receive a morsel of information that confirms our beliefs, and we do two things:<br /><br />- We share it, without checking to see whether it's true<br />- We label those who doubt its veracity as infected by some mass blindness, cuddling into a herd of conformity as we blast away their brainwashing with our dank truth bombs.<br /><br />The frequency and magnitude of these earth-shaking screw-ups is an important marker, for me. It shows, with absolute clarity, that clean technology is currently an issue linked totally to political belief systems. The machines are co-opted into ancient political and cultural battles, and information that once bore some linkage to reality is battered and bent, to serve the purposes of maintaining these mindless, eternal squabbles.<br /><br />This is why deploying technological upgrades to our energy system is so amazingly hard. This magnitude of wrongness is a shining marker of a machine dragged backwards by politics and ideology.<br /><br /><b>-----------------Calculations--------------------------------</b><br /><br /><u>What were the emissions from the process?</u><br /><br />The article states that:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"It takes us about 1.5 hours to process a sharp occurrence of icing wind turbines, says CEO Mats Widgren. Last winter, the method was tested with good results in Skellefteå Kraft's wind farm in the low mountain Uljabuouda in Arjeplog. During the year, the technology has been refined, and now it is ready for use. The water is heated over night using a truck equipped with a 260 kW oil burner. When morning dawns are 44 cubic meters of the 60-degree water in the tanks, and the helicopter can start running in the shuttle to the icy wind turbine"</blockquote><br />Thankfully, a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/photos/a.117937578400885.1073741828.117871478407495/480644518796854/?type=3&amp;comment_id=482181101976529&amp;comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D">commenter</a>, Bas Scheffers, has already estimated emissions for the operation of the helicopter:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The AS350 helicopter depicted here burns about 200 litres an hour, producing up to 400 kg of CO2. When the blades are spinning again, a turbine of this size produces 500 kWh on average. To produce 500 kWh using coal would produce about 500 kg of CO2. So assuming it takes about an hour to de-ice, the payback in CO2 terms is less than an hours running time"</blockquote><br />I really don't know a lot about helicopters, but comparing <a href="https://www.google.com.au/search?q=as350+helicopter&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj1m_H7jc7KAhWGMGMKHWLGBY0Q_AUIBygB&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=939">images of the AS350</a> to the <a href="http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3877153.ece/BINARY/original/Avisning.JPG">image in the article</a>, it's hard to argue. This site estimates ~<a href="http://www.helicopter-tours-kauai.com/robinson-helicopters.htm">35 gallons per hour</a> of operation for an AS350 - slightly less than 200 litres, but let's go with Bas' upper estimate - 400kgCO2/hour, which is 600 kgCO2 for the total 1.5 hours of de-icing.<br /><br />The truck heats 44 cubic metres of water* to 60°C overnight using a 260 kilowatt oil burner. If it's left at full output overnight, it's 260 kilowatts by ~10 hours, which is 2,600 kilowatt-hours of energy expended.<br /><br />Alternatively, the specific heat of water is 4.19 kJ/kg. 44 cubic metres of water is 44,000 litres, or 44,000 kilograms. And, this website tells me that:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The amount of heat needed to heat a subject from one temperature level to an other can be expressed as:<br />Q = cp m dT &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (2)<br />where<br />Q = amount of heat (kJ)<br />cp = specific heat (kJ/kg.K)<br />m = mass (kg)<br />dT = temperature difference between hot and cold side (K)"</blockquote><br />So, assuming our water starts off at 10°C, our formula is:<br /><br />Q = 4.19 x 44,000 x (60 - 10)<br />&nbsp; &nbsp; = 9218000 kilojoules<br />&nbsp; &nbsp; = <b>9.218 gigajoules</b><br /><br />One gigajoule is equal to 277.8 kilowatt hours - so it takes 9.218 x 277.8 = 2,560.6 kilowatt hours, which is pretty close to our alternative calculation. Fun, huh? Anyway, let's go with the upper estimate of 2,600 kwh to heat the truck of water using an oil burner.<br /><br />Non-freight carrying trucks consume approximately&nbsp;<a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9208.0/">22 litres</a> of diesel fuel per 100 km&nbsp;<i>(see edit note)</i> - an overestimate but let's run with it. It's unlikely to be more than a few kilometres between the turbine and the site office where the truck would fill up with water - let's call it five, for a total of 1.1 litres of diesel.<br /><br />The <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/da7bde5c-1be2-43f7-97d7-d7d85bb9ad6c/files/nger-technical-guidelines-2014.pdf">Australian National Greenhouse Gas reporting technical guidelines</a> has the following emissions factors for fuel oil, in kgco2-e per GJ. We can apply this to all three, and get a <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vCmgKgNAnPbPh0e5hsY9bNir1GkkVtbPjZYpR-uaYpQ/edit?usp=sharing">rough approximation</a> of the total emissions of the 1.5 hour de-icing operation:<br /><br /><iframe height="760" src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vCmgKgNAnPbPh0e5hsY9bNir1GkkVtbPjZYpR-uaYpQ/pubhtml?gid=0&amp;single=true&amp;widget=true&amp;headers=false" width="650"></iframe><br /><br /><u>What's the output, and displaced emissions, from the wind turbine?</u><br /><br />This is relatively easy to calculate. The photo is taken at the <a href="http://www.fortum.com/en/energy-production/wind-power/swedenprojects/pages/default.aspx">Blaiken wind farm</a>, in Sweden. Each of the <a href="http://www.fortum.com/en/mediaroom/pages/fortum-and-skelleftea-kraft-will-purchase-60-wind-turbines-from-nordex-to-blaiken-onshore-wind-farm.aspx">Nordex</a> turbines has a capacity of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaiken_wind_farm">2.5</a> megawatts, and average capacity for for onshore wind in Sweden is <a href="http://www.vindkraftsbranschen.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/EC_IA_analysis_by_Swedish_Wind_Power_Association.pdf">32%</a>. Again, let's be conservative, and assume that it's only operating at 20% capacity.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.nib.int/filebank/a/1418988989/641b62fc4160c826d2aa6cd713676638/4286-BlaikenVind_2_WEB_NIBIFIED_.jpg?fb_bfn=4285-BlaikenVind_2_WEB_NIBIFIED_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.nib.int/filebank/a/1418988989/641b62fc4160c826d2aa6cd713676638/4286-BlaikenVind_2_WEB_NIBIFIED_.jpg?fb_bfn=4285-BlaikenVind_2_WEB_NIBIFIED_.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The <a href="http://www.nib.int/news_publications/1566/nib_environmental_bond_loan_to_finance_arctic_225_mw_wind_farm_project_in_sweden">Blaiken</a> wind farm</td></tr></tbody></table><br />Our total emissions from the de-icing operation was 1,193.3 kilograms of co2-e. An Australian brown-coal power station has an emissions intensity of 1.3102 tonnes of co2 per megawatt hour (2015 average), or 1.31 kilograms per kilowatt hour.<br /><br />So, 1,193.3 kilograms of co2 emissions would get you ~911 kilowatt hours of electrical energy.<br /><br />How long does it take our wind turbine to produce the same? Our capacity is 2,500 x 0.2 = 500 kilowatts. So that's 911/500 = 1.8 hours of <i>low-level</i> output to fully offset the (over-estimated) emissions used in the process of de-icing this turbine.<br /><br />If the wind was high enough for the turbine to be at maximum output, you'd only need 0.364 hours, or <b>~22 minutes.</b><br /><br />Over the course of two days, the wind turbine will offset 2500 x 0.2 x 48 x 1.31 = 31,440 kilograms of co2 emissions. That's around 26 times the emissions output by the de-icing helicopter technique. We don't know how often the de-icing needs to occur, but it's likely it's deployed during times of high wind output, to maximise the return on the economic costs of de-icing.<br /><br />*I'm not sure it's actually water. The translated article specifies water, but I'd expect them to be using ethylene glycol or some other type of anti-freeze - water would just....freeze again, right? In any case, ethylene glycol has a lower specific heat than water (2.2 compared to 4.1), and as such, would require significantly less energy to heat (4.4 GJ, or ~330 kgCO2-e), and therefore would result in a lower emissions output. Let's just go with water, because we're choosing conservative assumptions that are as kind to Kelly's position as possible...Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-13311602846472335952016-01-19T13:57:00.000+11:002016-01-19T13:57:10.196+11:00Self-Sabotage in the world of climate, energy and politics Why would you say things? Do you want someone to feel the joy of a fresh perspective on an age-old conundrum? Do you want them to love something they hate? Do you want them to loathe something they like?<br /><br />It's a bit of everything for me. But it's weird how regularly writers self-sabotage, when it's clear they're setting out to change minds.<br /><br />A recent <a href="https://newmatilda.com/2016/01/13/capacity-factors-and-coffee-shops-a-beginners-guide-to-understanding-the-flaws-of-wind-farms/">piece</a> published on New Matilda is a great example of this. It's fair to assume the intent of the piece is to present nuclear power as a viable solution to the threat of climate change. But it's written in a way that immediately alienates anyone that it might be on the verge of considering that technology as something they could support.<br /><br />It's worth examining more closely, because this sort of thing happens in the renewable energy world, and the fossil fuel world, and the nuclear power world, and well, <i>all the worlds</i>. We're amazingly adept at convincing the convinced, and alienating the curious.<br /><br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />The author of piece, Geoff Russell, doesn't really synthesise a strong argument. He bases his piece on an odd coffee shop analogy:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The renewable alternative is like running a coffee shop with a crew of footloose narcoleptics who arrive if and when they feel like it and who can nod off with little notice. Would this work? Of course; just hire enough of them"</blockquote><br />Right from the outset, Russell frames renewable energy as a neurological disorder (because those suffering from narcolepsy can't be productive members of society, right?), and nuclear power as healthy and productive. The article also features some odd claims tacked onto this poorly-considered and condescending analogy:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><br />“But what happens when it’s really windy? The output is then triple the demand; so, without storage, that electricity gets dumped.”</blockquote><br />Wind generators are classified as ‘<a href="http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Market-Operations/Dispatch/SemiDispatch-of-Significant-Intermittent-Generation-Proposed-Market-Arrangements">semi-scheduled</a>’ on the NEM, which means they are issued with a dispatch target of X megawatts, in the 5-minute intervals where output limits are warranted. This target is used to balance supply and demand. When there’s too much supply, wind generators are forced to turn down, and face consequences (non-compliance) if they don’t. Electricity doesn’t get ‘dumped’.<br /><br />Someone brought this up in the comments, to no avail:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uOKW4JL7GcE/VpwXV_Uf_dI/AAAAAAACmQM/6-uqXKSKnes/s1600/russell1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="281" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uOKW4JL7GcE/VpwXV_Uf_dI/AAAAAAACmQM/6-uqXKSKnes/s640/russell1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />All generators on the National Electricity Market inform the operator of their ramp rate, and fluctuations are managed according to how rapidly each generator can respond. Each wind farm is different, but I've had a fair amount of experience with market dispatch SCADA control systems for a large South Australian wind farm, and it's fair to say it's significantly more response than a coal-fired power station. The system is carefully balanced, with responsiveness weighed against the frequency and severity of forecasted and unplanned fluctuations in the grid.<br /><br />Russell also tries to assert that a fleet of wind turbines would frequently be at a country-wide state of low output:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><br />“This isn’t so different from what would happen with a single 3,753 megawatt wind farm. So despite expectations, there were times when it was pretty windy almost everywhere and other times, including runs of multiple days, when it was pretty damn still almost everywhere.”</blockquote><br />Every time this is mentioned, the author tends to fail to mention forecasting tools - market operators know well in advance when these periods occur. They're also not as frequent as Russell insinuates. The chart below (I made it for <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/taking-respite-from-renewable-fiction-why-the-numbers-do-matter-59671.">this</a>) shows how the distribution of wind output has changed over time:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Chart4.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Chart4.jpeg" height="537" width="640" /></a></div><br />Yes, wind turbines are built with a capacity far higher than the average level of wind it’s going to receive. This is because it captures wind power at a range of different wind speeds – regardless of regularity. High winds are rare, but it's still important to capture that energy.<br /><br />It’s the same idea behind a car slowing down and speeding up – it can travel at 250km/h, but on average it goes at 50km/h. Except, we don’t criticise vehicle technology because it operates at a low capacity factor – because it’s doing precisely what it’s designed to do, as wind turbines are. If you use the same metric to judge two different technologies, you'll get a misleading answer.<br /><br />Russell also looks at the required build of transmission network infrastructure for new clean energy, too:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"These lines aren’t being built without protest. The path of least resistance will be wildlife habitat; to avoid concerns both real and imagined over reducing property prices and health risks."</blockquote><br />'Real health risks'? The Western Australian public health body <a href="http://www.public.health.wa.gov.au/cproot/1372/2/Powerlines_Electromagnetic_Fields_and_Health.pdf">explains</a> the 'health risks' of transmission lines quite well:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"At the edge of an easement, the [Electro-magnetic fields] are appreciably lower than they are in the centre. The WHO limits are not exceeded anywhere within easements; the EMFs outside easements are consequently well below these limits"</blockquote><br />Of course, contact with power lines is lethal - hence the safety regulations. But Russell <a href="https://newmatilda.com/2016/01/02/phobic-fear-no-excuse-for-sloppy-thinking-and-hanging-the-innocent//">rails angrily</a> against those who consider nuclear power a general health risk, and public concern has focused largely on electro-magnetic fields. When it comes to critiquing renewable energy, Russell seems happy to adopt a standpoint that he'd normally dismiss as irrational and emotional.<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />These articles are always framed as arguments against a system comprised of 100% renewable energy. This is an enjoyable exercise for those who really don't like renewable energy, or the groups that tend to support it. Russell labels the technology 'unreliable', 'narcoleptic', 'deficient' - there is palpable loathing, here.<br /><br />A claimed <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/energetics/on-clean-energy-tribalism-and-tropes">immunity</a> to bias and tribalism is a pretty constant theme in nuclear power advocacy, too. The benefits of this attitude are pretty clear: it means you've got access to a truth that lesser, more <i>biasy</i> people don't have. This is an alienating attitude. There's a section on the 'Decarbonise SA' website, run by Ben Heard, entitled '<a href="http://decarbonisesa.com/about-2/who-gets-it/">WHO GETS IT?</a>' - the immediate implication being that all names not on that list are somehow disconnected from reality. Senator Sean Edwards, a key player in nuclear advocacy in Australia, frames the issue in a similar way:<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">.<a href="https://twitter.com/larissawaters">@larissawaters</a>' comments on SA renewables are pie-in-the-sky fantasy. Greens' energy 'policy' is expensive, unreliable and fanatical.</div>— Sean Edwards (@SeanC_Edwards) <a href="https://twitter.com/SeanC_Edwards/status/679430512742547458">December 22, 2015</a></blockquote><br />As I mentioned earlier, this dual system of claiming immunity to delusion whilst simultaneously protecting one's own worldview isn't unique to nuclear power advocacy.<br /><br />In the world of renewable energy advocacy, we sometimes fail to understand and acknowledge the technical limitations of clean energy. It's something I find myself <a href="https://medium.com/@ketanj0/the-martian-canals-of-political-and-scientific-perception-80e7f4de2763">doing pretty regularly</a>; it's a problem, and it's difficult to notice and quell.<br /><br />Australia's coal industry is probably the largest and purest example of this problem - <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/coals-problem-isnt-pr-its-coal.html">their entire PR campaign</a> rests on this effortless system of self-sabotage. Consider, too, Naomi Klein's efforts to frame climate change action as belonging solely to a subset of political change. Mark Lynas <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/12/climate-change-reclaim-debate-political-extremes">writes</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"In insisting that tackling carbon emissions must be subordinated into a wider agenda of social revolution and the dismantling of corporate capitalism, Klein isn’t making climate mitigation easier: she is making it politically toxic"</blockquote><br />Lynas outlines what would be almost unremarkably obvious, were we not all the primary drivers of this trend: we protect our perception first, and we care about saving humanity second. It isn't bad, or weird: our brains come standard with this feature, and it's hard to avoid it.<br /><br />Advocates and critics of renewable energy, fossil fuels and nuclear power are each subject to an alternate mix of cultural and social blinders, each to a varying severity. Layered on top is an assumed in-group bias immunity, and an assumed out-group bias-affliction.<br /><br />Russell's article showcases this stark disconnect, but don't let that make you feel comfortable. We all tend towards self-sabotage, and it requires effort and practice to neuter.Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-23585280334295149912016-01-11T11:23:00.001+11:002016-01-11T11:23:14.477+11:00Why Germans are bemused by Australia's wind turbine terrorI had an interesting taste of precisely how bizarre the Australian attitude towards clean energy is, in rural Germany.<br /><br />I was on the outskirts of a town called Ebersheim, in the region of Mainz. Ebersheim is about forty minutes from Frankfurt, and it’s enclosed by a collection of wind turbines. Stepping out from the house I was staying in and moving around the first corner, you can see the tall, red-tipped machines poking through the homes. Turn to your left, and move slightly further down the street, and you can see some others.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Y1O7eVur4Ms/VpLuYjfDG3I/AAAAAAACmMc/zcAYwUVcI34/s1600/Blog1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Y1O7eVur4Ms/VpLuYjfDG3I/AAAAAAACmMc/zcAYwUVcI34/s1600/Blog1.jpg" /></a></div><br />I ventured closer to take some photos, armed with a collection of lenses. A rare glimpse of winter sunlight peeking through the permanent cloud layer instilled me with urgency. I stood just outside the town, on a pathway next to a winery, switching lenses and snapping furiously. Some locals walked past whilst I was doing this. The custom, I’d learnt, is generally to smile and greet people you pass by. These people just looked at me, down at my camera, at the turbines, and back at me, with utter bemusement.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-s48r6pd8mAE/VpLuttNZuPI/AAAAAAACmMk/Vg2JmTR4GV0/s1600/blog2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-s48r6pd8mAE/VpLuttNZuPI/AAAAAAACmMk/Vg2JmTR4GV0/s1600/blog2.jpg" /></a></div><br />I was little confused by this. I even tried greeting them myself, but they muttered a response and their bemusement was unchanged. Later, I paused to dwell on why they were so confused by someone taking photos of a picturesque wind farm in a beautiful field, next to a pretty rainbow.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CE5lK3d6rrg/VpLvoHHmgvI/AAAAAAACmMs/X96TV6rCkLo/s1600/blog3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CE5lK3d6rrg/VpLvoHHmgvI/AAAAAAACmMs/X96TV6rCkLo/s640/blog3.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />There’s something about Germany that seems to make it an ideal candidate for technology like wind farms. It currently leads the EU in wind power - <a href="http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/files/library/publications/statistics/EWEA-Annual-Statistics-2014.pdf">39 gigawatts at the end of 2014</a>, making up 30% of total EU installed wind power.<br /><br />I think it has a lot to do with geography. There’s no Australian urban sprawl, and there’s no fierce, imagined dichotomy between city and rural. Small towns are scattered across the country – you’re never really that far away from a human horizon, and it seems wind power has developed (relatively) smoothly, due partly to this.<br /><br />With an even spread of cities, joined by large highways and a very prevalent transmission network, it makes sense people see wind turbines on the horizon and say ‘meh, it’s electricity. Who cares’. In Australia, the sudden construction of wind energy in rural areas is perceived (mostly by opponents of energy technology upgrades) as cultural greed – low-carbon technology is framed as an inner-city obsession, rather than a necessary technological upgrade, and an obsession that’s forcibly lumped onto rural communities.<br /><br />It’s interesting to consider this as a factor in why wind energy has been generally well-met in Germany, compared to the Australian experience of ‘wind turbine syndrome’ and community protests. I don’t think there’s any way to emulate this advantage in Australia – attitudes to development will always be informed by culture and community, imagined or real. I’d probably say that it’s a strong reminder of how important ‘energy democracy’ is – the implementation of sharing and benefit schemes in large-scale clean energy development.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0tEAHaej178/VpLvvgRk2aI/AAAAAAACmM0/Jgp-LD7hA0w/s1600/blog5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0tEAHaej178/VpLvvgRk2aI/AAAAAAACmM0/Jgp-LD7hA0w/s1600/blog5.jpg" /></a></div><br />Germany, as it happens, has a very strong culture of benefit sharing. I had a chat to my host about my experience on the outskirts of Ebersheim. She told me about a neighbour in the small town who owns shares in those very turbines, and has been making money off them, and he loves them.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index.php?id=61&amp;tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=1078&amp;cHash=0ef7ab6acbe25170d9601807dc6c5430"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tdUjIduH-EI/VpL1e6gLXlI/AAAAAAACmNM/AQnNYZ_GpJw/s400/gmernaownership.jpg" width="342" /></a></div><br />It really makes me wonder if, some time in the near future, Australians might drive past a wind farms and think ‘yep, whatever’. I’m not sure that’s enough, in Australia, in the context of sprawling and distinctive culture and worldview.<br /><br />Australia will need a serious rethink of large-scale clean energy development, and the creation of benefit-sharing schemes as standard, if we’re to meaningfully source electricity from big, visible machines placed in the rural landscape. You can't legislate a cultural shift; nor can private companies fund it. You can only live it, and hope those around you take notice.<br /><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3HbWCxjhTe8/VpLyiLtRtQI/AAAAAAACmNA/B23DgGYu9nI/s1600/blog4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3HbWCxjhTe8/VpLyiLtRtQI/AAAAAAACmNA/B23DgGYu9nI/s640/blog4.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div>Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-42475390783454884452015-12-03T13:34:00.000+11:002015-12-03T14:06:17.250+11:00'Innovation-Only' Climate Inactivism: Our rebadged reliance on outdated technologyFor five years, the rejection of climate science seemed like the best option for protecting technologies that rely on fossil fuels. But pumping money into organised denialism is becoming less effective - public acceptance of climate science is <a href="http://www.essentialvision.com.au/climate-change-12">slowly increasing</a>, and the field of climate denial has attracted a broad collection of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Patrick_Moore">awkward</a> <a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm">cranks</a>.<br /><br />Hence, the need for a re-brand. This isn't unambiguous scientific denial - it's <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/ketan-joshi/2015/19/2015/1434682618/rise-climate-inactivism">climate inactivism</a> - passionately arguing and advocating for the absence of any <i>action </i>to reduce carbon emissions.<br /><br />A key component of inactivism has been an effort to frame fossil fuels as a moral imperative - an argument that was born in <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/12/02/coal-giant-peabody-denies-social-media-poverty-campaign-bogus">US fossil-fuel-funded think-tanks</a> and that has now been adopted by the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/coal-is-good-for-humanity/story-e6frg71x-1227090541610">Australian government</a>, the <a href="https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site%3Atheaustralian.com.au+poor+indian+coal&amp;oq=site%3Atheaustralian.com.au+poor+indian+coal&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.5272j0j4&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;es_sm=93&amp;ie=UTF-8">conservative media</a>&nbsp;and the <a href="http://www.minerals.org.au/resources/coal/coal_bringing_power_to_the_people">Minerals Council</a>. They're not normally the groups you'd see arguing for collective action to altruistically assist those in need, but they make an exception when it comes to advocating for fossil fuels.<br /><br />There's a new component of climate inactivism that's re-emerged during the <a href="http://www.cop21paris.org/">21st Paris Conference of Parties</a>. It's explained neatly in <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/climate-change-demands-innovation-not-subsidy/story-e6frg71x-1227630254191">an editorial</a>, in <i>The Australian</i>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Green technologies are not yet mature and not yet competitive, but we insist on pushing them out to the world. Instead of production subsidies, governments should focus on making renewable energy cheaper and competitive through research and development. Once the price of green energy has been innovated down below the price of fossil fuels, everyone will switch.”&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Dr Lomborg greeted the Mr Gates-led coalition as a positive sign confirming innovation as the key to climate mitigation. But he points out that today’s favoured subsidies do not encourage innovation, instead making companies stick to inefficient but subsidised technologies such as solar and wind power"</blockquote><br />Lomborg is the chief proponent of the idea that logical outcome of the need for research is the immediate cessation of all government support for all clean technologies - a fallacy that's republished verbatim in the editorial.<br /><br />The declared 'insufficiency' of wind and solar somehow transforms into "inefficiency", and <i>The Australian</i> then suggests we replace government support of clean technology with research - "instead of", rather than 'in addition to'. It's a popular concept, because it avoids, entirely, the need to reduce carbon emissions by any quantity in the coming decades.<br /><br />So, because existing technologies can't immediately and entirely replace the world's energy system we shouldn't be encouraging their deployment anywhere, ever. This re-branding of denialism seems to manifest in the creation of this weird gradation:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TCcCl0vCFkQ/Vl-VXq59mXI/AAAAAAACj8o/mgBLnDfEzp4/s1600/IUNNOSMALL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TCcCl0vCFkQ/Vl-VXq59mXI/AAAAAAACj8o/mgBLnDfEzp4/s1600/IUNNOSMALL.jpg" /></a></div><br />People find themselves welded to a spectrum, according to their views on technology, their ideological underpinnings and their general worldview. I really don't think we need to slide along the single dimension offered by the approach above.<br /><br />I agree with the idea that greater spending on research and innovation is a good thing for the clean tech industry, and decarbonisation. We'll get deeper, faster cuts if we do this, which is why Bill Gates' '<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-01/gates-behind-mission-innovation-push/6990154">Mission Innovation</a>' project is a good thing.<br /><br />I also agree that we could <a href="http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/a-completely-renewable-future-isnt-as-far-fetched-as-we-think?utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_source=Twitter&amp;utm_campaign=Echobox&amp;utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1449093842">potentially</a> decarbonise using technology we have today - the <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/aemo-modelling-outcomes">Australian Energy Market Operator</a> did a great report illustrating that pre-existing technologies might do the job, assuming some 'anticipated technology cost reductions and performance improvements'. But this isn't about potentials, anymore - it's about rate-of-change.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PmqHeH_kA9w/Vl-V7vahq6I/AAAAAAACj8w/nkJp9jpvQ6w/s1600/image007.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="468" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PmqHeH_kA9w/Vl-V7vahq6I/AAAAAAACj8w/nkJp9jpvQ6w/s640/image007.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"<span style="font-family: &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 10.88px; font-style: italic; line-height: 17.408px; text-align: start;">Figure 7: Optimised generation mix – total energy generated" from AEMO's modelling exercise</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Progressives recognise that the 'innovation-only' end of the spectrum is a branding exercise for continued inaction. Conservatives recognise that subsidised deployment leads to a quantifiable threat to the market share of carbon-intensive fuels. Both sides spy an ideological trojan horse embedded in ideas that are, in and of themselves, good ideas. Both sides are right: this is how humans beings deal with the world - through the lens of our own package of <a href="http://ssir.org/articles/entry/climate_science_as_culture_war">biases and ideologies</a>. But this isn't a case of both sides being 'equally wrong'.<br /><br />The progressive half of politics in Australia has done a lot for clean technology research and innovation, and the conservative half has mostly sought to destroy it. Looking back on the past three years of Australian energy policy, and the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australias-renewable-energy-investment-grinds-to-a-halt-20150414-1mkn70.html">subsequent halt on clean technology construction</a>, that's an inarguable point.<br /><br />It's extremely important to note that the Australian Greens and the Labor Party were responsible for the creation of two agencies dedicated to research, development and innovation - <a href="http://arena.gov.au/">ARENA</a>&nbsp;and the <a href="http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/">CEFC</a>. But, it's&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2015/nov/30/malcolm-turnbull-lays-a-wreath-at-the-bataclan-concert-hall-in-paris-politics-live?CMP=share_btn_tw#block-565bbba7e4b035aa1151065e">still government policy</a> to continue attempting to abolish these two agencies. When the attempted abolition of these bodies was first announced in the 2014 budget, it was hailed in <i>The Australian</i> as an '<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/subsidy-scam-hurt-the-energy-sector/story-e6frg8zx-1226921944377">impressive first step</a>'. Research and development, once it actually starts happening, is perceived as a threat that needs to be obliterated.<br /><br /><script height="366px" src="http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#pbid=88cf53e1825843818f448a2fbd214483&amp;ec=dhZ283eTqTWxOBnNdMxPA0kGfWDlayWy" width="650px"></script><br /><br />This approach continues once technologies reach maturity. Opponents of renewable energy have focused heavily on the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate-inquiry-calls-for-new-national-rules-to-curb-wind-farms-20140430-zr271.html">propagation of health fears</a> around wind farms. Currently, a newly-created government role to receive complaints about wind farms will cost $600,000, and the National Health and Medical Research Council has been compelled to set aside $2.5 million, specifically to commission scientific studies of 'wind turbine syndrome'.<br /><br />The West Australian state government is now <a href="http://www.perthnow.com.au/technology/was-solar-households-decry-unfair-tax/news-story/d481f0c74dd9ba4425d128d53ac24783">charging a tax</a> for those who dare to reduce their electricity demand through rooftop solar. The large-scale renewable energy target, which saw the successful installation of several thousand megawatts of clean technology, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-23/amendments-to-cut-renewable-energy-target-pass-parliament/6568642">was reduced</a> this year, on the basis that the reduction was justified by the previous period of anti-renewable energy campaigning.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/assistant-health-minister-pru-goward-says-wind-turbines-must-be-probed-over-pressure-waves-20151019-gkck5s.html"><img border="0" height="508" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1PCSqB4htp8/Vl-ZRKBLS8I/AAAAAAACj88/OMHGzsGEwmU/s640/pressurewaves.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />Deploying existing technology leads to a quantifiable reduction in carbon emissions, in the energy system. Below, I've done an estimate for each month so far this year, using the power output of wind and the two large-scale solar plants registered on the electricity market, of emissions saved from the use of clean technology that <i>exists</i>, and is churning out megawatts <i>right now</i>:<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0zPgsP7Fyb0/Vl-eUOm4LkI/AAAAAAACj9U/hzUO0ZhQaqY/s1600/emissions%2Bchartsmall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0zPgsP7Fyb0/Vl-eUOm4LkI/AAAAAAACj9U/hzUO0ZhQaqY/s1600/emissions%2Bchartsmall.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Emissions intensity is the average NEM fossil fuel intensity for each interval, using existing generators</td></tr></tbody></table><br />If we adopted the approach advocated in <i>The Australian</i>, the chart above would be zero for each month. The deployment of clean technology, and subsequent reduction in carbon emissions, has happened through the creation of government schemes - schemes that 'innovation only' climate inactivists openly seek to completely destroy. Genuine R&amp;D might double or triple the height of those green columns, in half the time. Imagine that.<br /><br />Here's the thing: every single technology that emerges from the billions of dollars of investment in research and development will face extremely passionate opposition from incumbent polluters. Even if we created a technology that could compete effectively with coal through innovation and research, it faces a decade of manufactured syndromes, government health studies, Prime Ministerial declarations of ugliness and outright denialism.<br /><br />The goal, for those hijacking the reasonable push for increased innovation and invention, is to lock-in the reign of harmful technology for another few decades. Paired with the illogical and awkwardly adopted moralising, and a sprinkle of standard scientific denialism, we're wedded to a collection of technologies for which we'll pay the price, with no share of the profits.<br /><br />*Updated - amended wording about AEMO 100% renewables report to be clearer on cost and performance assumptionsKetanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-25962643103680305622015-11-30T18:26:00.000+11:002015-12-04T10:24:00.275+11:00The Weird Pendulum Swing of Dawkins' IdeologyWhen I was in year 11, I read a book called <i>The Selfish Gene</i>, by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. It's a great piece of science communication. It inspired me to make a lego DNA model for my high-school biology project. The idea that much of what comprises our identity is contained in this ribbon of code seemed genuinely wonderful, to me.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aJqQ1dgfBZQ/VmDO3O_vWEI/AAAAAAACj-g/rMvlsNDa9R0/s1600/legodna.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aJqQ1dgfBZQ/VmDO3O_vWEI/AAAAAAACj-g/rMvlsNDa9R0/s640/legodna.jpg" width="480" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">My Lego DNA model, featuring falling Technics guy</td></tr></tbody></table><br />But I have to admit, part of why I loved <i>The Selfish Gene</i> so much is because it seemed a closer linkage to reality than the book some avowedly creationist peers in biology class were reading. It was the same with his later work, <i>The God Delusion</i>. That book wasn't about science communication, but it described a philosophy that I already subscribed to, and put my frustration into words. It also made feel like I had access to an insight that was being ignored by most other people.<br /><br />Dawkins now seems to exemplify the things that he once called out: namely, succumbing to some internal force that draws you away from rationality, and failing to recognise when bias and the unconscious defence of belief is tugging you in some unpleasant direction.<br /><br />It's nearly a full decade since I first read&nbsp;<i>The</i>&nbsp;<i>God Delusion</i>. Now, Dawkins is&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&amp;vertical=default&amp;q=from%3Aricharddawkins%20clock&amp;src=typd">tweeting obsessively</a>&nbsp;about a teenage boy, Ahmed Mohamed, who was recently arrested in Texas for bringing a homemade clock to school, for a science project.&nbsp;The clock was mistaken for a bomb, and Mohamed was arrested:<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">Ahmed's sister told me to post this. Yes this situation is real for those questioning. <a href="http://t.co/Oxd0JxUS6O">pic.twitter.com/Oxd0JxUS6O</a></div>— Prajwol/Ru (@OfficalPrajwol) <a href="https://twitter.com/OfficalPrajwol/status/644011809351962625">September 16, 2015</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />There's something about that photo that kind of gets to me. The NASA shirt is instantly disarming, and of course, his arrest is indicative of irrational racial profiling - the idea that you can spot a threat by the origin of someone's surname, rather than evidence-gathering and analysis.<br /><br />Dawkins hasn't discussed the serious implications of Mohamed's wrongful arrest. He's focused instead on the authenticity of the clock, and &nbsp;is now firmly convinced that the teenage boy removed a clock from its housing and offered that as his own work. Follow the reply threads on Twitter you'll see the regular assertion that the family orchestrated this as an <a href="https://twitter.com/godape/status/647976645891092480">intentional hoax</a>, designed to provoke a response.<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">Don't call him "clock boy" since he never made a clock. Hoax Boy, having hoaxed his way into the White House, now wants $15M in addition!</div>— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/669098728662409216">November 24, 2015</a></blockquote><br />It's pure conspiracy theory - the assumption that intentional agents are orchestrating events, rather than a natural emergence of patterns. It's an odd pendulum swing. Believing that expected occurrences are orchestrated by a single organism is one of the things that leads to a belief in, say, creationism - and it's also something that, when combined with Dawkins' genuine hostility towards Islam, leads him to attribute some over-arching scheme to this teenage boy's high school project.<br /><br />I see this a lot. Senator David Leyonhjelm, who is ideologically anti-government, hates government support for wind energy so much that he advocates for <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senator-david-leyonhjelm-wants-government-to-monitor-wind-turbine-noise-20150523-gh812j.html">government regulation</a> of wind farm projects - regulation funded by the taxpayer (the recently announced 'wind commissioner' role, requested as part of an inquiry helmed by Leyonhjelm, comes in at <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/windfall-for-wind-farm-watchdog-pms-parttime-commissioner-to-nab-600000-20151127-gla5v7.html?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=nc&amp;eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq">$600,000</a>).<br /><br />This is a standard feature of feeling your way through the world by adhering to pre-determined schema, rather than mulling over issues using your noggin. You will be weirdly driven towards whatever thing it is that you're railing against, and you won't blink an eye when someone highlights your hypocrisy. Guaranteed.<br /><br />In an effort to refute accusations that he was embarking on a vendetta against a kid, Dawkins <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/25/richard-dawkins-links-isis-child-who-beheaded-man-and-clock-boy-ahmed-mohamed">awkwardly juxtaposed</a> Mohamed's recently-announced $15m lawsuit with the actions of a 10-year-old boy being forced by an ISIS fighter to decapitate a Syrian officer:<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">"But he's only a kid." Yes, a "kid" old enough to sue for $15M those whom he hoaxed. And how old is this "kid"? <a href="https://t.co/kjzxGDs5Az">https://t.co/kjzxGDs5Az</a></div>— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/669160536320421888">November 24, 2015</a></blockquote><br />He's <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/669575423651667968">baffled and outraged</a> by the suggestion that he was directly equating Mohamed's alleged "hoax" with the actions of the child in the linked article. But his tweet, the reaction and his subsequent defense illustrate an important point that he's never understood: if everyone fails to understand something the way you understood it when you wrote it, you are a <i>bad communicator</i>. Also, there won't be a single interpretation of what you said: context, attitude, sentiment and timing all impact how your message sits inside the brain of those who choose to consume it. <br /><br />Even if Dawkins' assertions are true, and Mohamed has committed the unforgivable crime of not &nbsp;manufacturing an electronic timepiece from raw mined materials, Dawkins has fallen deep into a hole of weird conspiracist reasoning. Take, for instance, the classic 'if you don't believe me, google [x]' argument:<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="https://twitter.com/historyinflicks">@historyinflicks</a> Google Texas infamous clock. Now do you think it's stupid?</div>— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/669198899823951872">November 24, 2015</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <br /><br />It should be relatively easy to spot the error in reasoning, here. You can't determine whether something is real by simply googling it - research is effortful, and often google is used as a tool to find a collection of links that agree with your worldview, rather than a broad synthesis of research or evidence-based arguments. Finding evidence isn't enough - you need to know how to evaluate it:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">“Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you"</blockquote><br />Dawkins said that in <i>The God Delusion</i>. His plea, to advocate for a greater spread of critical thinking, directly contradicts his newfound attitude: if you don't believe me, just google it.<br /><br />The clock-trutherism might just be a some sort of ideological defense - the creation of a narrative that negates the threat to his worldview. In this case, it's the preservation of organised religion (and its adherents) as consistent aggressors. It extends to the lawsuit thing, as well. In America, there is a <a href="http://www.commongood.org/blog/entry/infographic-lawsuits-in-america">new lawsuit every two seconds</a>, but Dawkins sees the response of the boy's family and declares it part of the conspiracy (that's not to say the lawsuit is a good thing - just that it's unremarkable).<br /><br />Jeff Sparrow <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/we-can-save-atheism-from-the-new-atheists">writes in</a> <i>The Guardian</i> about Dawkins' increasingly steep descent into irrationality:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"You can proclaim you’re an atheist, a freethinker, a devotee of the enlightenment – and yet somehow still end up backing rightwing Christians like George W Bush and Ben Carson in their campaigns against the Muslim hordes.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Which is why it’s not enough to denounce Dawkins and Harris. If we’re to save the good name of atheism, we need to popularise a fundamentally different approach, one that seeks to understand religion rather than simply sneering at it"</blockquote><br />I'm not sure I agree with all of Sparrow's piece, but he makes a monumentally important point: injecting a dose of empathy and a time of listening both go a <i>very</i> long way. I'd argue that it's more rational to spend time understanding the gears inside someone's head - what's made them turn to organised religion? Why is someone rejecting the science of vaccination? It's almost <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/02/on-keane-and-razer-why-pointing-out-the-stupidity-of-others-is-seductive">never 'stupidity'</a> - it's usually a complex brew of sentiment and cognitive bias - you can't counter it with assignations of ignorance. It's also rational to work towards effective communication. Being right is half the game, not the whole game. You need to be right, and to be <i>heard</i>.<br /><br />Dawkins prodded me into the very real and thrilling joy of understanding science. But his attitude and approach are leading to increased prevalence of the precise things he's railing against. This pendulum swings with such momentum that Dawkins now exemplifies conspiracist ideation and irrational discrimination.<br /><br />A confession: my brother helped me make my lego DNA model. Like..majorly. He did all the hard bits, and I just finished it off. <i>Come at me, Dawkins</i>.Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-45197748632960342882015-11-24T17:39:00.000+11:002015-11-24T17:39:24.239+11:00Clarification from Ketan Joshi to Sarah LaurieI am a Research and Communications Officer employed by Infigen Energy, which operates wind farms in Australia.<br /><br />On 29 June 2015, in the context of a series of tweets describing the proceedings of a public hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines, I published the following tweet:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kC71mq6BNwQ/VlP76UWsObI/AAAAAAACj70/pl8sICgieQI/s1600/Laurie_Tweet.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="269" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kC71mq6BNwQ/VlP76UWsObI/AAAAAAACj70/pl8sICgieQI/s640/Laurie_Tweet.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />In the interests of avoiding confusion, I would like to re-state that the allegation contained in the tweet by Ken McAlpine, linked to in my tweet that Sarah Laurie is a “deregistered” medical practitioner, is without foundation and entirely false.<br /><br />I would like to reassert that Sarah Laurie is not deregistered and has never been sanctioned by the Medical Board of Australia. &nbsp;Sarah Laurie allowed her registration as a medical practitioner to lapse for personal reasons.<br /><br />Ketan Joshi<br />Research and Communications Officer<br />Infigen EnergyKetanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-40264257578015035912015-11-10T19:04:00.001+11:002015-11-12T12:30:19.274+11:00Why incumbency breeds tone-deaf social media - #YourTaxis and #CoalisAmazingSocial media, and Twitter in particular, is experiential, confessional and largely anecdotal. By design, it isn't a good medium for level-headedness or facts. It's a hazy, roiling shitstorm of japes, memes, in-jokes, stories, pictures, abuse and friendship. It sounds unpleasant, but it's sometimes quite nice.<br /><br />For most organisations and corporations, it's largely a tool for injecting tiny bits of information into the mass of shifting, uncontrolled chaos. Most of the time, it meets this need with unremarkable ease.<br /><br />But for industries that are facing widespread unpopularity or the onset of competition, social media is <a href="http://www.ellisjones.com.au/social-media-agency/">sold</a> to them as the precise opposite: a predictable, meaningful and manipulable collection of willing participants, ready and waiting to be convinced of the merits of a thing.<br /><br />The most recent victim of this fallacy is the Victorian Taxi Association (VTA). The <a href="http://junkee.com/victorian-taxis-new-yourtaxis-campaign-backfires-spectacularly-turns-into-the-perfect-ad-for-uber2/68988">#YourTaxis campaign</a>, designed to encourage taxi users to write-up stories of their experiences, was managed by Melbourne PR agency <a href="http://www.ellisjones.com.au/">Ellis Jones</a>. It <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-10/vic-taxis-campaign-backfires/6927626">hasn't</a> gone well:<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">I usually have taxis drop me several blocks from my home because of past experiences with cab drivers. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/YourTaxis?src=hash">#YourTaxis</a> ≠ comfort or safety.</div>— we can ＂do it＂ ;) (@lizduckchong) <a href="https://twitter.com/lizduckchong/status/663858991466856448">November 9, 2015</a></blockquote><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/YourTaxis?src=hash">#YourTaxis</a> That time I had to punch my way out of a cab because the driver was trying to sexually assault me.</div>— Amy Gray (@_AmyGray_) <a href="https://twitter.com/_AmyGray_/status/663841128580448256">November 9, 2015</a></blockquote><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">.<a href="https://twitter.com/yourtaxis">@yourtaxis</a> More than once, Caucasian drivers have spent the whole trip ranting about how terrible non-Caucasian drivers are <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/YourTaxis?src=hash">#YourTaxis</a></div>— Sophie Benjamin (@sophbenj) <a href="https://twitter.com/sophbenj/status/663832476612071424">November 9, 2015</a></blockquote><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/yourtaxis?src=hash">#yourtaxis</a> is now trending in Australia <a href="https://t.co/giFpgTnEo5">https://t.co/giFpgTnEo5</a></div>— Trends Australia (@TrendsAustralia) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrendsAustralia/status/663704339073130496">November 9, 2015</a></blockquote><a class="twitter-timeline" data-widget-id="663952820056395776" href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/yourtaxis">#yourtaxis Tweets</a><script>!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+"://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");</script><br /><br /><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>This isn't the first time an ill-conceived hashtag has been hijacked - remember <a href="https://theconversation.com/qantasluxury-a-qantas-social-media-disaster-in-pyjamas-4421">#QantasLuxury</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-14/woolworths-under-fire-for-anzac-promotion/6392848">#FreshInOurMemories?</a>&nbsp;But I think the Victorian taxi industry is different. This error was caused by the VTA assuming that heavy public usage of their product is due to their popularity, rather than their monopoly. The site is plastered <a href="http://yourtaxis.com.au/">triumphantly</a> with statistics on the huge number of vehicles and trips in Victorian taxis<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-s8Fl7xC2RBI/VkF-RHSjNAI/AAAAAAACj5o/JnlUtyEM_zo/s1600/taxiblog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-s8Fl7xC2RBI/VkF-RHSjNAI/AAAAAAACj5o/JnlUtyEM_zo/s1600/taxiblog.jpg" /></a></div><br />Like many people, I tend only to use taxis when I <i>need </i>to. In this situation, we're faced with a &nbsp;choice: take a taxi, or walk some enormous, unfeasible distance. Our reliance on taxis does not signal a love of taxis. Being forced to use this specific service means many, many negative experiences - you, and all of your friends and family, have had them.<br /><br />In fact, it seems people are waiting impatiently for alternatives - this is where <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/16/uber-wins-high-court-case-taxi-app-tfl">Uber</a>, an American ride-sharing service (with a interesting skill in marketing and PR - they once delivered kittens, but largely only to <a href="http://www.cnet.com/au/news/uber-delivers-adoptable-kittens-to-your-doorstep/">media outlets</a>) rides the wave of public grievance, and they profit.<br /><br />The VTA are now insisting that around five thousand personal and public declarations of horror, inconvenience, racism, sexism and sexual assault are a Good Thing:<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">Not a PR fail at all <a href="https://twitter.com/whatsthestoryAU">@whatsthestoryAU</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/newsmodo_com">@newsmodo_com</a> This is exactly point of <a href="https://twitter.com/yourtaxis">@YourTaxis</a> - feedback on the good, bad &amp; everything in between.</div>— yourtaxis (@yourtaxis) <a href="https://twitter.com/yourtaxis/status/663944957934202881">November 10, 2015</a></blockquote><br />The CEO of the VTA <a href="http://www.victaxi.com.au/news-and-events/news/2015/11/10/yourtaxis-epicfail-not-quite/">said</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The response online over the past 24 hours isn't anything we didn't expect. We asked for feedback and we got it. The good and the bad and everything in between” he went on.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"It also demonstrates the number of people that rely on taxi services and we want to make sure our service continues to meet customers' expectations in a period of rapid change.”&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"We will respond to everything that comes our way on YourTaxis.”</blockquote><br />They've accidentally identified the root cause of their problem, here. A large number of people do rely on their services. This is why the several hundred stories of sexual assault should trigger serious changes, rather than cheerful promises.<br /><br />It's also misleading for them to frame their campaign as a feedback initiative - if it was, they'd have simply designed a survey, collected the results, and implemented changes, without the fanfare. My own experience is that it works well, when you do a representative questionnaire.<br /><br />This incumbency/popularity confusion is also the root cause of the Minerals Council #CoalisAmazing&nbsp;<a href="http://mumbrella.com.au/coalisamazing-at-fuelling-a-social-media-shitstorm-316987">backlash</a>, which followed almost exactly the same trajectory. Twitter didn't respond positively to that campaign, either:<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">My uncle was killed in one of these cages when it hurtled into the floor of a mine shaft - <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/coalisamazing?src=hash">#coalisamazing</a> <a href="http://t.co/aM7KyginbI">pic.twitter.com/aM7KyginbI</a></div>— Jason Thompson (@Simulated_Jase) <a href="https://twitter.com/Simulated_Jase/status/640440974133489664">September 6, 2015</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />And the organisation behind the campaign also clumsily insisted it wasn't <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-28/minerals-council-ceo-22delighted22-by-23coalisamazing-social/6810816">bothered</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"We've been delighted," &nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"We completely anticipated it, we revel in it.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"We fully expected that there would be parodies and we would've been disappointed if there weren't some."</blockquote><br />It's weirdly similar to the VTA's insistence that they're unsurprised, unbothered and pleased by the response. It might even be true, but it comes across as completely insincere, and sour-faced.<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">The MCA is all "Coal is so amazeballs" and twitter is like "Nah bro. Nahh" <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/coalisamazing?src=hash">#coalisamazing</a> <a href="http://t.co/bMuTFaA269">pic.twitter.com/bMuTFaA269</a></div>— Greg McNevin (@gmcnevin) <a href="https://twitter.com/gmcnevin/status/640742545794863104">September 7, 2015</a></blockquote><br />And, of course, they also repeat, proudly, how much everyone is forced to rely on their product. The Minerals Council trumpets statistics showing coal's dominance in Australia, in the precisely the same way the Taxi Industry does:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FcijCGVNnok/VkGE3nbNyxI/AAAAAAACj6I/BwAxngWhMvw/s1600/coalrole.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FcijCGVNnok/VkGE3nbNyxI/AAAAAAACj6I/BwAxngWhMvw/s1600/coalrole.jpg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Part of the reason coal dominates our fuel mix so profoundly is the fact the power stations were paid for by state governments when they were <a href="http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r10/nsw/subpages/history/electricity_in_australia.pdf">built</a>. New, clean power stations don't get lump-sum government support - it has to be earned per megawatt hour - and this support is <a href="http://www.minerals.org.au/news/2030_renewable_energy_target_will_harm_australias_competitiveness">angrily opposed</a> by the now-incumbent, carbon-intensive generators.<br /><br />All this does is remind people that no matter how hard you try, you don't <i>have a choice</i>. The electricity flowing into your powerpoints will be generated from inefficient, heavily-polluting dead old plants, so you <i>better learn to love it</i>. And your trip home at 3am, after public transport shuts down, will be in a taxi that you have to shed blood and tears to find and capture - if you're less than 10 kilometres away, you won't be getting on at all, so you <i>better learn to love it</i>.<br /><br />This is why people like the idea of rooftop solar, grid-connected utility-scale wind, Uber, Lyft and Go-Get. Incumbents are in a position where they are free to ignore public opinion, and they almost certainly will. #Coalisamazing and #YourTaxis aren't surveys designed to determine the shape of public sentiment; they're misguided attempts to wrangle popularity.<br /><br />Incumbency create a permanent state of tone-deaf social media confusion.<br /><br />Instead of paying for risky social media campaigns, they could invest in new technology - upgrading systems to meet or even out-perform new entrants; blending their experience with cleverness and novelty. It won't happen. Social media will continue to be presented as a conduit for manipulation, reliant on this confusion between incumbency and popularity.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Update - Victaxis seem to have ditched the social media agency after a poorly-considered tweet <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/12/yourtaxis-remembrance-day-tweet-flags-fresh-outrage-in-victoria">about Remembrance Day</a>. Meanwhile, the American 'I Love Fossil Fuel' coal-lobby account has sent a nearly identical <a href="https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/664604258130464769">tweet</a>, hijacking remembrance day to push their agenda. Both accounts managed to misspell 'remembrance' (Victaxis even misspelled it in their apology):<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l9de8knJyms/VkPrbj6v3QI/AAAAAAACj6g/ZzXjQJFsKjI/s1600/fossilfuels.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l9de8knJyms/VkPrbj6v3QI/AAAAAAACj6g/ZzXjQJFsKjI/s1600/fossilfuels.jpg" /></a></div><br />Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-10178741731020801482015-11-03T13:41:00.001+11:002015-11-03T18:57:59.819+11:00No, wind farms did not cause Adelaide's power outage Last Sunday, there were <a href="https://twitter.com/SAPowerNetworks/status/660807807982178304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">widespread power outages</a> in Adelaide, due to what seems to be a combination of planned maintenance on one of the two interconnectors between South Australia and Victoria and a collection of other outages. The link between the two states was partly severed, and 160 megawatts of flow from the interconnector vanished instantly. This causes a sudden change in frequency, and to balance this loss of power, some demand had to be shed, causing the outages.<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">You can see here the (blue line) IC drop out, and SA gas immediately ramps up to account for the loss <a href="https://t.co/WJ0ZYWXSiE">pic.twitter.com/WJ0ZYWXSiE</a></div>— Ketan Joshi (@KetanJ0) <a href="https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/660922624898273280">November 1, 2015</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <br /><br />As you might expect, this easy-to-understand series of events serves as a great little substrate for panicked assignations of blame, devoid of evidence or analysis - check out <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/aemo-says-coal-withdrawal-wont-impact-south-australia-reliability-63819">these</a> <a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/11/2/energy-markets/are-intermittent-unreliable-wind-farms-causing-havoc-sa-again?t=0dc5c3b8ea27dc59136105366298af9835ce2684">two</a> articles for some actual numbers around the issue.<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">It's "Renewables II: Rise of the System Costs" <a href="https://t.co/n58BhKtm89">https://t.co/n58BhKtm89</a></div>— Ben Heard (@BenThinkClimate) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenThinkClimate/status/660915132608806912">November 1, 2015</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />Attributing this incident to the presence of renewable energy isn't supported by evidence. Single events like Sunday's outages don't suggest a prior or looming trend of frequent outages caused by renewables. Heard, at least, is willing to <a href="https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/660942995953336320">engage</a> with this question on Twitter.<br /><br />But Andrew Bolt, a blogger for News Corp, takes what might normally be a subtle, calculated effort to heap blame on any technology that doesn't burn compressed dead old plants to get power, runs with it, and fumbles in the process. It's like that brave seagull you always see at Circular Quay, that steals an enormous sandwich, thinking it's done something totally great, but then proceeds to drop it into the ocean. Then it just hovers, squawking with angry confusion at the foregone bounty, as the square of sodden oceanic food expands into nothingness.<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Andrew Bolt's piece, <a href="http://www.donotlink.com/h83k">here</a>, is cleverly titled "Wind don’t blow, South Australia don’t glow". This is an attempt to distract you from the fact that power supply in SA continues uninterrupted during low wind periods, because you're dazzled by the revolutionary, inventive rhyme that's been deployed in the headline.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0wBtbVCaq3o/VjfnqRWHfzI/AAAAAAACj10/oqz-WNH5ADY/s1600/Bolt1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0wBtbVCaq3o/VjfnqRWHfzI/AAAAAAACj10/oqz-WNH5ADY/s1600/Bolt1.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">IT RHYMES THEREFORE IT IS TRUE AXE TAX WIND BLOW POWER FLOW GLOW YAY RHYME</td></tr></tbody></table><br />In the image above, you might notice a chart of wind power. Look at that <i>drop</i>! Wind power is the <i>worst</i>!..............except, Bolt seems to have presented a chart of wind power output on May 25th this year, not Sunday the 1st of November.<br /><br />The 1st of November is a full 160 days from Bolt's chart. Weirdly, Bolt has picked a single day - specifically, one in which the change in output looks dramatic due to the scaling on the y-axis of his chart. Let's look at 25/05/2015 in context:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WflbxAVedgs/Vjf_s-6_sqI/AAAAAAACj2M/u_8AlwImIRc/s1600/olt2_ResizebBolt2.tif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WflbxAVedgs/Vjf_s-6_sqI/AAAAAAACj2M/u_8AlwImIRc/s1600/olt2_ResizebBolt2.tif" /></a></div><br />It's a little disappointing that he didn't choose the 3rd. Maybe he was trying to be generous? Or maybe the change in wind speed wasn't spooky enough? Anyway, it gets worse.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"South Australia’s Premier likes to boast his state has more wind power than any other.....what he doesn’t add is that this not only gives South Australia the country’s highest power prices and a dependency on Victoria’s coal-fired power"</blockquote><br />This is the part where the seagull soars through the air, but begins to feel the sandwich falling from its beak. He &nbsp;claims that SA's power price is the highest in the country, due solely to wind power - he uses the word "gives". Australian Energy Market Commission <a href="http://www.aemc.gov.au/getattachment/ae5d0665-7300-4a0d-b3b2-bd42d82cf737/2014-Residential-Electricity-Price-Trends-report.aspx">data</a> shows pretty clearly how weird that claim is.<br /><br />First, we can say with confidence that SA has relatively high power prices. The following shows FY15 costs:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZCudhepEQoM/VjgGKBp-rSI/AAAAAAACj2g/bwL-EeAG-Tc/s1600/Bolt3_Resize.tif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZCudhepEQoM/VjgGKBp-rSI/AAAAAAACj2g/bwL-EeAG-Tc/s1600/Bolt3_Resize.tif" /></a></div><br />Hmm, okay. So SA has the highest cost, <i>and </i>the highest wind power penetration (about 30%). Since good ol' common sense tells us that if two things that happen at the same time, one thing has definitively caused the other, we could stop here.<br /><br />But, well,&nbsp;<i>sod it</i>, let's look at the percentage contribution of the LRET, the scheme that supports wind development in Australia, for each state, for the same year:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uNEvWKkF6Bg/VjgIc68bDiI/AAAAAAACj20/rnruQqPkZEA/s1600/Bolt4_rezie.tif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uNEvWKkF6Bg/VjgIc68bDiI/AAAAAAACj20/rnruQqPkZEA/s1600/Bolt4_rezie.tif" /></a></div><br />SA's high retail costs aren't caused by wind farms. SA's LRET cost, as a percentage of total bills, is the second lowest (it's 2.17%, only the NT has a lower percentage, at 1.48%).<br /><br /><i>Shucks</i>. Turns out you can't establish a causal relationship because two things happen at the same time. This piece of knowledge is really going to shake up public discourse.<br /><br />After providing some handy links to an anonymous anti-wind blog that regularly posts <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com/2013/12/death-threats-and-finite-spiral-of.html">death threats</a> and <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/anonymous-racist-mockery.html">racist abuse</a>, Bolt quotes from <a href="http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/widespread-power-blackout-hits-adelaide/story-fni6uo1m-1227590229395?utm_content=SocialFlow&amp;utm_campaign=EditorialSF&amp;utm_source=AdelaideAdvertiser&amp;utm_medium=Twitter%27">an article</a> in the <i>Adelaide Advertiser</i>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"A spokesman for SA Power Networks said the state lost supply from “upstream” when the interconnector shut down, triggering an automatic loss of power — load shedding — in SA, resulting widespread outages…When the Victorian system shut down, 160 megawatts of energy was lost and wind power did not supply energy because it often does not start until 3am."</blockquote><br />Oh, boy. I don't even know where to start. The last sentence seems to have been added in by someone who literally just threw in a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZE1eIPJxyA">reckon</a> into their article. Readers were entirely convinced by this too - many of the comments express a hatred of wind power as a consequence of this weird, invented claim.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9-eytCqUCs8/Vjga7KziorI/AAAAAAACj4U/BPCTZE7y-DE/s1600/Comment1.tif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="121" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9-eytCqUCs8/Vjga7KziorI/AAAAAAACj4U/BPCTZE7y-DE/s400/Comment1.tif" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-F7GsiP6jr-Q/Vjga8F0WdCI/AAAAAAACj4c/2mgn5_iMhmM/s1600/comment2.tif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="145" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-F7GsiP6jr-Q/Vjga8F0WdCI/AAAAAAACj4c/2mgn5_iMhmM/s400/comment2.tif" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HWemWRa0xRY/Vjga8i5kDAI/AAAAAAACj4k/g1kR5T07oPk/s1600/comment3.tif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="267" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HWemWRa0xRY/Vjga8i5kDAI/AAAAAAACj4k/g1kR5T07oPk/s400/comment3.tif" width="400" /></a></div><br />First, megawatts are power, and megawatt-hours are energy. So, the lines 'megawatts of energy' and 'power did not supply energy' aren't exactly filling me with hope that our reckoner understands the basics of the national electricity market.<br /><br />So, did "wind power not supply energy" (it hurts, typing that)? Here's a chart of output by fuel type for the night of the 1st, on which the power outages occurred:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v6vPFJ1npKU/VjgTCBOwgWI/AAAAAAACj3o/onH-AsGnORo/s1600/bolt6resize.tif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v6vPFJ1npKU/VjgTCBOwgWI/AAAAAAACj3o/onH-AsGnORo/s1600/bolt6resize.tif" /></a></div><br />At the time of the outage, 21:55 NEM-time, wind power in South Australia was producing 221 megawatts. It continued at that level for the next hour, and wind speeds across SA gradually decreased throughout the next morning. So, it's completely wrong to say 'wind power did not supply energy' (it kept producing over time), or even 'wind power did not supply power' (it was producing when the IC broke).<br /><br />This is roughly the point at which our seagull is watching its coveted sandwich plummet towards the dark green surface of Sydney harbour.<br /><br />What about "often does not start until 3am"? Are wind speeds over South Australia directly connected to Central Standard Time? Does Andrew Bolt really believe that the atmosphere refuses to move until a specified time, every day? Let's look at average wind power output in SA, by hour, so far this year:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nuWY7mb1SzU/VjgTuukTe1I/AAAAAAACj3w/diajVRLK_ZQ/s1600/b%2Bo%2Bl%2Bt%2B5%2Breize.tif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nuWY7mb1SzU/VjgTuukTe1I/AAAAAAACj3w/diajVRLK_ZQ/s1600/b%2Bo%2Bl%2Bt%2B5%2Breize.tif" /></a></div><br />Obviously, averages don't tell the whole story, but this is more than enough to dismiss that weird, casual statement about diurnal variations in wind speed. In fact, that profile is neatly opposite to SA's solar power output, which is a good thing in the long run.<br /><br />Yes, South Australian wind power was producing at the time of the blackout, and no, the atmosphere doesn't wake up at 3am. This is where our seagull friend simply hovers above the inedible, putrid sandwich, wondering what went wrong, squawking at nothing and no-one in particular.<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Over the next few weeks, there will be quite a few attempts to induce fear and anxiety about South Australian renewable energy, using this event as a basis. They'll over-egg the risks presented by variable-output power, and they'll completely ignore the risks presented by a total reliance on outdated, carbon-intensive fuels and technologies. Some of these attempts will be more subtle than others. These claims are somewhere in the angry-seagull-that-lost-a-sandwich zone.<br /><br /><i>Click <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Au73EozSjEX01jcXVHdk5zUWs/view?usp=sharing">here</a> to access the raw data used for this blog post - please don't republish this post without first checking with me :) Thanks :)&nbsp;</i>Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-35332193084885918902015-10-25T11:13:00.000+11:002015-10-25T11:13:06.177+11:00We might all be doing it a little bit wrong Okay, the blog title's a bit of a cop-out, but this is a principle that's both exceedingly obvious and extremely hard to come to terms with.<br /><div><br /></div><div>When I say 'wrong', I don't mean a failure to synthesise and prosecute facts obtained through the scientific method. Our ability to do that should simply be a base minimum. What I mean is that communication needs to happen in a way that makes things better, not worse. If we make things worse, we're doing it wrong.<br /><br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div>Recently, the NSW Assistant Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and the Minister for Medical Research, Pru Goward, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/assistant-health-minister-pru-goward-says-wind-turbines-must-be-probed-over-pressure-waves-20151019-gkck5s.html">addressed</a> a forum organised by wind farm opponents in Yass.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote class="tr_bq">""Increasingly, I am [of] the view that there is some validity on the health effects" of wind farms, Ms Goward was reported in the Yass Tribune as saying on Friday. "There are a number of people with health problems...it is clearly not psychosomatic."&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Ms Goward went further on Monday, telling Fairfax Media turbines' blades created pressure waves that "resonate in the skulls" of people living as far away as five kilometres.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I don't think we know enough about the impacts," she said. "It is something we should be prioritising.""</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div>On hearing these remarks, I remembered something I'd heard a while back. It was on ABC radio Orange, on the 19th of March in 2015. You can listen to the whole clip <a href="https://clyp.it/rsoiaprj">here</a>, but at 02:18, Goward says this:&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"That's why I think Luke Foley's decision to have no setbacks for wind turbines whilst might sound great in Sydney could be a social disaster in our region. I don't say that unwisely. a social disaster meaning it will just add enormously to the dissent, the unhappiness and the real fear people have of wind farms."</blockquote><div><br /></div><div>The discussion continues around the issue of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-17/nsw-election-labor-parks-koalas-renewables-environment-plan/6325388">setbacks</a>, and at 4:20, the following exchange occurs:&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote class="tr_bq">Interviewer: In terms of that two kilometre setback, does that bring some comfort to those who are opposed to them ?&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Goward: Oh yes. It certainly means that they can't be towering over your house. Unfortunately, wind farms companies have not always behaved properly in the past. Some people have been tricked into believing that they wouldn't have it within two kilometers, then go and look at the plans, didn't put in an objection, and the find out that they're 900 metres from their house, that's one poor family just out of Crookwell.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">The poor lady has a neurological disease and the electromagnetic radiation from the wind turbine, she's a very straight-forward farmer's daughter, but she feels that it makes her ill, because of the electromagnetic force. Of course, that's what the turbines doing, it's creating electromagnetic radiation. Look, Angela, I think we'd all agree it would be wonderful to think we had more renewable energy policies. Our policy's very focused on solar.&nbsp;</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div><iframe frameborder="0" height="160" src="https://clyp.it/zzhzbliu/widget" width="100%"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><div>This is a peculiar juxtaposition. Goward raises alarm about Foley's wind energy policies creating 'real fear', but a few minutes later, tells the tale of wind farm electromagnetic radiation having a direct, real physiological impact on human beings. It's just as vague as Goward's 'skull resonance' remarks made a few days ago.&nbsp;</div><div><br />Despite the very-hard-to-ignore strangeness of the claims, Goward actually sort of has a point. The development of wind energy technology in rural communities does need to improve. Dissent, and unhappiness and fear all have real health impacts on communities. But seconds later, she's directly contributing to the continued emergence of these negative features of clean energy development.<br /><br />Members of the NSW Liberal party attempted to defend the claim in parliament. Duncan Gay <a href="http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LC20151020?open&amp;refNavID=LC6_5">said</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"We appreciate, however, that this remains a contentious issue for some in the community, which the NHMRC also recognises. We welcome the efforts of the NHMRC to continue to support further research into this issue and we look forward to considering the outcomes of that research. The Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Medical Research and Assistant Minister for Health is my local member"</blockquote><br />Advocating for more research isn't a defense for telling a community that it is certain that wind turbines cause harm, or that they ought to be fearful of electromagnetic radiation.<br /><br />Goward's statements are relevant to a recent piece of <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935115300608">research</a> that demonstrates a close linkage between expectations and the triggers of annoyance. The paper concludes that:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"...accessing negative information about sound is likely to trigger annoyance, particularly in noise sensitive people and, importantly, portraying sound positively may reduce annoyance reactions, even in noise sensitive individuals"</blockquote><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NvF-P3pqTA8/VitJXhl4WxI/AAAAAAACjy8/RUGgt4mj2gg/s1600/puic1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NvF-P3pqTA8/VitJXhl4WxI/AAAAAAACjy8/RUGgt4mj2gg/s1600/puic1.jpg" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-01CbTwdhQ4E/VitJbO4h-fI/AAAAAAACjzE/P7zqKfH1Ln4/s1600/pic23.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-01CbTwdhQ4E/VitJbO4h-fI/AAAAAAACjzE/P7zqKfH1Ln4/s1600/pic23.jpg" /></a></div><br />This is a fascinating addition to an already sizable body of research that shows <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494408000224">attitudinal factors</a> play a big role in how we respond to novel features of our environment. Other researchers <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494408000224">found</a> that "A negative visual attitude, more than multi-modal effects between auditory and visual stimulation, enhanced the risk for noise annoyance and possibly also prevented psychophysiological restoration possibilities".<br /><br />More directly, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4227478/">health warnings from authority figures</a> are, as you might expect, taken seriously. Given Goward's prominence in the NSW health system, there's little doubt there were many in the audience who would have taken the advice to heart. It seems possible that someone might forego medical advice, thinking that some ailment is being caused by a wind turbine. This doesn't seem like a responsible thing for a health minister to say.<br /><br />Goward's remarks are a brilliant example of doing it wrong. Presenting warnings about wind turbine syndrome and this weird sub-plot of electromagnetic interference in the brain isn't going to reduce 'fear' in the community. I can't imagine how Goward ever thought it would.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Anyway, advocates of renewable energy do it wrong sometimes, as well. And again, by wrong, I don't mean some failure to adhere to evidence, which is a different story. I simply mean an approach that leads to an outcome opposite to the one that was originally hoped for.<br /><br />In a 2008&nbsp;<a href="https://www.academia.edu/16799737/Cool_Rationalities_and_Hot_Air_A_Rhetorical_Approach_to_Understanding_Debates_on_Renewable_Energy?auto=view&amp;campaign=weekly_digest">paper</a> called <i>"Cool rationalities and hot air: A rhetorical approach to understanding debates on renewable energy"</i>, researchers identify some themes that pop up in UK anti-wind rhetoric:<br /><br />- Sacrifice and disempowerment<br />- Lack of trust in government, regulatory processes and windfarm developers<br />- Language of war, conflict and defence<br />- Foreignness, aliens and anti-colonial rhetoric<br />- Industrialisation and commercialisation of the environment<br /><br />These are all very familiar to me. They're constant features of Australian anti-wind rhetoric. But, more fascinatingly, the paper discusses themes used by supporters and advocates:<br /><br />- The assumption and imperative towards consensus<br />- Rational, knowledge-based, scientific evidence<br />- Overcoming opposition<br />- Urgency and threat of climate change and the transition to a low carbon economy<br />- The discourse of ecological modernisation<br /><br />The researchers essentially conclude that the constant back-and-forth of these collections of rhetorical patterns is fairly pointless.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The assumption of expectation that consensus and agreement will rise (expressed by pro-wind discourses) is discursively weak in the sense that &nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">a) it is based on a flawed assumption that the main reason for anti- positions is ignorance and lack of knowledge, - hence this discourse's naive correlation between information provision and agreement - and &nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">b) can verge on arrogance in terms of preemptively ruling out any negotiation - which of course serves to inflame, rather than inform the debate"</blockquote><br />The solution? The researchers suggest an attitude of conflict resolution:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"A conflict resolution approach accepts the legitimacy of pro and anti positions and movies in the direction of demanding each side engage with the other on grounds of mutual respect and as co-equals, whereas as the analysis of texts indicate there is a strong narrative of being the 'underdog' within anti-wind positions - thus making themselves out to occupy the moral high ground of the aggrieved / innocent 'victim', while pro-wind positions often present themselves as expert-based and therefore epistemically 'superior' to their opponents"</blockquote><br />This paper was published in 2008, prior to the <a href="http://grist.org/article/2009-11-16-nina-pierpont-quest-to-sound-the-alarm-on-wind-turbine-syndrome/">invention</a> and spread of 'wind turbine syndrome'. I think the authors have a point, and we, as the advocates of technological development in rural communities, do it wrong, sometimes. But we're in a post-wind-turbine-syndrome world, now. The research is still accurate, in that simply throwing science at people won't get you far, but I wonder how effective conflict resolution is, in the face of a powerful and un-falsifiable pseudoscientific industry built around creating fear of wind energy.<br /><br />This is why Goward's remarks are so harmful. People in the clean energy industry who see the value in conflict resolution rather than endless argumentation are increasing in number, but years of hard work in that area can undone in seconds, by casual utterances from people in positions of power.<br /><br />We all need to stop doing it wrong, at the same time, for things to get better. But the anti-wind side will have to sacrifice a strongly-held belief in bad science and harmful, evidence-free warnings of 'skull resonance', and I wonder if that's even possible.&nbsp;</div>Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-7879586175067959212015-10-03T21:00:00.000+10:002015-10-05T14:37:15.644+11:00The Martian - Building a new sci-fi era, from the ground up I hear often that people are scared of change, but I don't think that's universally true. Sometimes, we get excited by change.<br /><br />I suspect the moment we landed a capsule of humans on the rock orbiting our planet felt a lot like change - a sudden, jarring update installed on our species. Except, it wasn't as monumental as we expected. <i>Wait But Why's</i> amazing, <a href="http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html#part1">super-long post</a> on space travel, Elon Musk and Mars explains this fizzled excitement in a single neat graphic:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://28oa9i1t08037ue3m1l0i861.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/graph3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://28oa9i1t08037ue3m1l0i861.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/graph3.png" height="281" width="400" /></a></div><br />I think the science-fiction renaissance we all kind of hoped might happen over the past five years matches this excitement trajectory quite neatly.<br /><br />Big-budget, shiny, spectacular films like <i>Gravity</i> and <i>Interstellar</i> are presumed to herald a jarring shift in the waning popularity of science fiction, returning us to the heady days of <i>2001: A Space Odyssey</i> and <i>Star Wars</i>.<br /><br />But I don't think these films are going to bring about a jarring change - I think the more modest ventures are the ones that do the real grunt-work in ratcheting up the role of science in cinema. Ridley Scott's <i>The Martian</i> is a great example of a single point in a nice, gradual upward curve - other films like <i>Moon</i>, <i>Ex Machina</i> and <i><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/govindini-murty/finding-movie-inspiration_b_3965784.html?ir=Australia">Europa Report</a></i> are great examples of science fiction films that are unheralded single points on this gentle upwards slope.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.residententertainment.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Martian-1Sht-CampA-Eng.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.residententertainment.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Martian-1Sht-CampA-Eng.jpg" height="640" width="432" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Via <a href="http://www.residententertainment.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Martian-1Sht-CampA-Eng.jpg">Resident Entertainment</a></i></td></tr></tbody></table><br />I picked up a copy of Andy Weir's <i>The Martian</i> in New Zealand, recently. It's not a bad book, though it does take a little bit of time to get used to the fairly detailed considerations of mathematical problems in it. It covers the story of Mark Watney, a NASA astronaut stranded on Mars during a botched science mission. Watney's speciality is botany, and wry humour, and Weir's book is a great journey through Watney's increasingly haggard time on Mars.<br /><div><br />The movie is astonishingly faithful to the source material. Throughout the film, I was waiting for the plot to diverge clumsily from the book, and for the awkward, inelegant fat fingers of the studio to throw in some over-wrought love interest or absurd cliché (remember that moment when Arthur Dent professes his love for Trillian the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie? The screenwriter <a href="http://nypost.com/2005/04/24/science-friction-the-battle-over-the-wacky-world-of-hitchhikers-guide-to-the-galaxy/">insisted</a> it had to be done, for the purpose of advancing the plot).<br /><br />There are two very noticeable moments where this happens, but they're not major. They still stand out in a film that 97% well-written. In one particularly painful moment, a NASA astronaut explains something in mildly technical terms, and her colleague pleads with her to '<a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodNerd">speak English</a>' - you can imagine the stupendous simpleton standing over the shoulder of the screenwriter, insisting that line be inserted into the script. The other moment I can't really mention for fear of spoilers, but if you've read the book before you see the film, you'll probably squirm as much as I did. On the upside, one of the most enjoyable moments of the film, when Watney declares he wants to '<a href="https://youtu.be/ej3ioOneTy8?t=59">science the shit</a>' out of his predicament, was also not in the book.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/2015/06/17/martian-tifrss0009frnleft-1001rrgb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/2015/06/17/martian-tifrss0009frnleft-1001rrgb.jpg" height="320" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Via <a href="http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/2015/06/17/martian-tifrss0009frnleft-1001rrgb.jpg">Newsweek</a></td></tr></tbody></table><br />The clumsy interventions stand out, because <i>The Martian</i> is the first modern science fiction film that unashamedly champions engineering and science, over clumsy, clunking narrative insertions. A monologue at the end of the film beautifully describes the film's key protagonist - not Damon's dishevelled wise-cracking astronaut, but the scientific method and simply working through a problem to reach a resolution.<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ej3ioOneTy8" width="640"></iframe><br /><br />No narrative awkwardness is required in this film - Watney's problem-solving drives us through this journey, like his faithful, reliable Mars rover. Compare this to <i><a href="http://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/16-things-gravity-got-wrong-and-some-things-it-got-right-too/">Gravity</a></i>, in which the protagonist progresses through the film by erasing the laws of physics. Watching Sandra Bullock fire-extinguisher her way between space stations was painful. I'm much more forgiving towards <i>Interstellar</i>, simply because it's very high-concept, and it's also distractingly beautiful.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kr3TWwVv_Bs/Vg-qg9U2nAI/AAAAAAACjj0/NANo0kQP4FA/s1600/interstellar_endurance_spaceship-3840x2160.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="360" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kr3TWwVv_Bs/Vg-qg9U2nAI/AAAAAAACjj0/NANo0kQP4FA/s640/interstellar_endurance_spaceship-3840x2160.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Interstellar was pretty, but painful</td></tr></tbody></table><br />The Martian doesn't distract with purple space things. It presents a calm, deliberative approach to problem-solving as a way of surviving, as an engine for drama and exploration and emotion. It actually does this better than the book, due largely to Ridley Scott's experience and skill in this medium. And, the science is accurate - make sure you read astrophysicist Katie Mack's review of the film <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/an-astrophysicist-meets-the-martian">here</a>.<br /><br />Despite some irritating and truly unnecessary sci-fi cliche blips, the film does far more than advocate for a human mission to Mars (you should see the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/discovery-of-water-on-mars-coincides-with-ridley-scotts-movie-the-martian/story-fnjwlcze-1227550130024">conspiracy theories</a> about NASA's recent announcement of the discovery of flowing water on the red planet).<br /><br />It presents the survival of a human as dependent on effort, and focus, and mathematics. So many other films assure us that peril will be resolved by unseen forces working towards our moment of redemption - that problems are resolved simply by waiting, and watching. <i>The Martian</i> ditches that assumption, and it's an absolute pleasure to watch.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://media.gq.com/photos/560a972adfc9eee35e9eb9e2/master/pass/the-martian-matt-damon-image1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://media.gq.com/photos/560a972adfc9eee35e9eb9e2/master/pass/the-martian-matt-damon-image1.jpg" height="422" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Watney sciences the shit of his wall</td></tr></tbody></table><br />This film feels simultaneously minor and monumental. The modesty with which it presents this pro-scientific philosophy is important - it's a single point in what I hope is a gentle upward slope in science fiction films: cinema that presents science as a method, rather than a monster. I hope this trend is coupled to an increasing love of space travel, one that ratchets upwards over time in a sustainable trajectory. We've been without the thrill of exploration for too long, and I want to be alive when a human being touches their space-boot to Martian soil.<br /><br />The film is good. Go and watch it. Four and a half stars.&nbsp;</div>Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-15761078943354613732015-09-30T11:04:00.003+10:002015-09-30T11:04:43.451+10:00The errors in Switzer's RN segment on renewable energyLast week, on Tom Switzer's 'Between the Lines', there was a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/betweenthelines/renewables3a-worth-the-money3f/6801926">story</a> on renewables. There was some interesting discussion around global energy policy, but there were also some very significant misunderstandings of energy policy, which went unchallenged by the host and remain uncorrected online. I've made a summary below.<br /><br />There's a lot to go through. Stick with it.<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />In the introduction, Switzer says that:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><b>"Both [Abbott and Turnbull] have been committed to the goal of generating at least 20% of our electricity from renewable sources within the next decade"</b></blockquote><br />...What? No. The current Renewable Energy Target is <a href="https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/policy-advocacy/renewable-energy-target.html">33,000 gigawatt hours</a>. The target under Labor was 41,000 gigawatt hours. The Coalition's original desire was for an <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/the-worlds-first-renewable-energy-limit.html">upper limit</a> of renewable energy of 20% of total demand, but this was blocked in the senate.<br /><br />After the target was reduced from 41,000 to 33,000, ex-PM Tony Abbott admitted that he wanted it &nbsp;reduced further, and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-11/abbott-wants-to-reduce-wind-farms-wishes-ret-never-implemented/6539164">explicitly stated</a> he wished the RET had never been created.<br /><br /><i>"I would frankly have liked to reduce the number a lot more but we got the best deal we could out of the Senate, and if we hadn't had a deal, Alan, we would have been stuck with even more of these things."</i><br /><br />Switzer continues, in his introduction:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><b>"Bill Gates, among others, reflects this thinking. Speaking with the Financial Times a few months ago, Gates argued that the current renewables are dead-end technologies. Here's Gates: They are unreliable. Battery storage is inadequate. Wind and solar output depends on the weather. The cost of decarbonisation using today’s technology, this is Gates' argument, is beyond astronomical"</b></blockquote><br />First of all, this all sounds a little familiar. Here's an extract from a <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-renewable-energy-fantasy-1436104555">July 2015 opinion piece</a> in the <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, written by <a href="http://desmogblog.com/rupert-darwall">Rupert Darwall</a>:<br /><br /><i>"Recently Bill Gates explained in an interview with the Financial Times why current renewables are dead-end technologies. They are unreliable. Battery storage is inadequate. Wind and solar output depends on the weather. The cost of decarbonization using today’s technology is “beyond astronomical,” Mr. Gates concluded"</i><br /><br />Switzer seems to be reciting the work of a guest on his show, without making it clear that he's doing so. So, did Bill Gates say renewables are "dead-end technologies"?<br /><br />Well....no. The <i>Financial Times</i> <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Au73EozSjEdUJNaWVaVHZTUE0/view?usp=sharing">article</a>, headlined "<b>Gates to double investment in renewable energy projects</b>" (seriously)&nbsp;quotes Gates:<br /><br /><i>"Solar is only during the day, solar only works best in places where it's warm. We don't have perfect grids. We don't have storage. there's no battery technology that's even close to allowing us to take all of our energy from renewables and be able to use battery storage in order to deal not only with the 23-hour cycle but also with long periods of time where it's cloudy and you don't have sun or you don't have wind"</i><br /><br />Of course, Gates has a point - demand levels don't always match the availability of flow resources like sunlight and wind, and there is still work to be done is finding a way to decarbonise the entire energy system effectively. But his remarks have been badly misrepresented by both Switzer and Darwall, whose logic is confused, completely weird, but very familiar.<br /><br />Gates is arguing for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-silver/bill-gates-is-funding-clean-energy-innovation----thats-great-but-lets-not-forget-current-deployment_b_7812568.html?ir=Australia">greater research</a> into renewable technology that can fully replace carbon-intensive fuels - he is <b>not</b> arguing against the deployment of current wind and solar. Our current RET policy won't encounter any of problems cited by Gates, Darwall and Switzer, yet they present these statements as if they're an argument against a 33,000 GWh RET scheme.<br /><br />Gates is&nbsp;<a href="http://qz.com/470592/by-bill-gates-why-im-investing-1-billion-of-my-own-money-into-clean-energy-research/">personally investing</a>&nbsp;in solar &nbsp;and battery storage innovation - a sneaky, dishonest dichotomy that's being used to suggest Gates is an anti-wind, anti-solar ideologue, to the extent that Darwall's word are presented unattributed and undeclared in the introduction to the program.<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="https://twitter.com/KetanJ0">@KetanJ0</a> Thanks. If you love science, you gotta hate wind and solar. They're like what Larkin said about parents. <a href="https://twitter.com/RNswitzerlines">@RNswitzerlines</a></div>— Rupert Darwall (@RupertDarwall) <a href="https://twitter.com/RupertDarwall/status/647409513151234052">September 25, 2015</a></blockquote><br />Darwall manages some monumental distortions of Germany energy policy. First, he claims:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><b>"I was talking to Fritz Varenholt, who ran RWE's renewable division, RWE is one of Germany's biggest electricity utilities, I said do you have a message for people abroad about Germany's renewables, and he said 'Don't follow Germany down this dead end"</b></blockquote><br />From this, it sounds like renewable energy executives are burying their heads in their hands, regretting ever having gone down the path of clean energy. What Darwall fails to declare is that <a href="http://desmogblog.com/fritz-vahrenholt">Varenholt</a> also spent time on the board of Shell, a mining company, and that Varenholt is also&nbsp;<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html">deeply involved</a> in the climate change denial community.<br /><br />Darwall continues:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><b>"...and if you look at German electricity prices, they are four times the European average"</b></blockquote><br />Er. Wow. So, this is way off. Eurostat <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Half-yearly_electricity_and_gas_prices,_second_half_of_year,_2012%E2%80%9314_(EUR_per_kWh)_YB15.png">reports</a> the 2014 average electricity price, in Euros per KWh, was 0.208. Germany, for the same time period, was 0.297. Depending on how you define 'prices', this ratio can change, but even the most generous interpretations are nowhere near 'four times' the European average.<br /><br />Even if Darwall was right, and German electricity prices are inflated four times due solely to renewable energy schemes, one would then expect the percentage component of renewable energy cost to logically be around three quarters, or 75%, of a single German electricity bill. Except, it's <a href="https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power">less than 21%</a>, according to March 2015 data.<br /><br />The chart below illustrates the contribution of renewable energy to bill increases, and it shows the scale of Darwall's exaggeration quite clearly.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-d2gpXudDdCY/Vgi4WPJISQI/AAAAAAACjjA/nKzwpbNDMc0/s1600/household-power-price-breakdown-2007-2014.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="273" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-d2gpXudDdCY/Vgi4WPJISQI/AAAAAAACjjA/nKzwpbNDMc0/s320/household-power-price-breakdown-2007-2014.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><a href="https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power">Clean Energy Wire</a> explains why, despite this increase in 'cents per kwh', support for clean energy remains strong:<br /><br /><i>"Despite years of rising prices, a stable majority of the populace remains in favour of the Energiewende. This may be in part due to the fact that electricity consumed only 2.5 percent of households’ disposable income in 2013, up from 1.78 percent in 1998 and back to mid-1980s levels, before the liberalisation of the power market in 1998 lowered prices. German household electricity bills consume a smaller share of disposable income than the European average"</i><br /><br />Craig Morris from Renewables International <a href="http://energytransition.de/2015/05/german-power-bills-low-compared-to-us/">demonstrates</a> how tiny this component is, in terms of total household bills:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3lLhiyhBhs4/VgokAuEL-2I/AAAAAAACjjQ/W2JXu4LJIRk/s1600/GET_6A8_Green_electricity_less_than_one_percent_of_average_household_budget-_l.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="491" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3lLhiyhBhs4/VgokAuEL-2I/AAAAAAACjjQ/W2JXu4LJIRk/s640/GET_6A8_Green_electricity_less_than_one_percent_of_average_household_budget-_l.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />Darwall continues:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><b>"When this project started in Germany, the 'energy transition', the German environment minister said it would cost the equivalent of a 'scoop of ice cream' a month. Well that scoop of 'ice cream' turns out to be costing over 300 euros, that's over $400 Australian per household per month. That is a very expensive ice cream"</b></blockquote>On average, Germans households <a href="https://www.wec-indicators.enerdata.eu/household-electricity-use.html">consume</a> around 3,500 kilowatt hours, annually. At 30 Euro cents per kilowatt hour, that's a yearly bill of&nbsp;€1,050. The renewables tariff is 21% of this: €220.50, annually, or €18.38 per month.<br /><br />This is still a particularly luxurious scoop of ice cream, but Darwall's figure is insanely off the mark - he's inflated it by a factor of sixteen. And again, Germans continue to strongly <a href="https://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/20140211-pi-bdew-umfrage-grosse-mehrheit-unterstuetzt-die-energiewende--umsetzung-wird-kritisch-be">support</a> the transition away from carbon-intensive fuels.<br /><br /><iframe frameborder="0" height="160" src="https://clyp.it/p0da4nw3/widget" width="100%"></iframe><br /><br />And, as you might expect, the environment minister never actually stated that the costs would be limited to an 'ice cream scoop'. In 2004, <a href="http://www.renewablesinternational.net/the-whole-story-a-luxury-item-in-contemporary-journalism/150/537/72900/">he used to the analogy</a> to describe costs <i>to date</i> - <a href="http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Bilder_Dateien/Mueller_Stromspeicher/Tagesschau_de_trittin20040118_rotMark.jpg">he says</a>&nbsp;in a <a href="http://www.bmub.bund.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/pm/artikel/erneuerbare-energien-gesetz-tritt-in-kraft/">press release</a> that "Es bleibt dabei, dass die Förderung erneuerbarer Energien einen durchschnittlichen Haushalt nur rund 1 Euro im Monat kostet - so viel wie eine Kugel Eis". Using Google Translate and my own terrible skills, this <a href="https://translate.google.com.au/?hl=en&amp;tab=TT#auto/en/Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz%20tritt%20in%20Kraft%0A%0ABundesumweltminister%20Trittin%3A%20Wirksamer%20Klimaschutz%20und%20Innovationsmotor%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20Wirtschaft%0A%0AAm%201.%20August%202004%20tritt%20das%20fortentwickelte%20Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz%20(EEG)%20in%20Kraft.%20Es%20wird%20morgen%20im%20Bundesgesetzblatt%20verk%C3%BCndet.%20Bundesumweltminister%20J%C3%BCrgen%20Trittin%3A%20%22Das%20neue%20EEG%20bietet%20einen%20verl%C3%A4sslichen%20Rechtsrahmen%20f%C3%BCr%20Investitionen%20in%20Solarenergie%2C%20Wind-%20und%20Wasserkraft%2C%20Bioenergie%20und%20Geothermie.%20Die%20Novelle%20sichert%20eine%20erfolgreiche%20Entwicklung%2C%20die%20bei%20den%20erneuerbaren%20Energien%20bereits%20jetzt%20zu%20120.000%20Arbeitspl%C3%A4tzen%20und%20zu%20einem%20j%C3%A4hrlichen%20Umsatzvolumen%20von%2010%20Milliarden%20Euro%20in%20Deutschland%20gef%C3%BChrt%20hat.%20Das%20EEG%20geh%C3%B6rt%20damit%20weltweit%20zu%20den%20wirkungsvollsten%20Klimaschutz-Instrumenten.%20Es%20ist%20Motor%20f%C3%BCr%20Innovationen%20und%20erh%C3%B6ht%20die%20Exportchancen%20f%C3%BCr%20deutsche%20Technik.%22%20Die%20neuen%2C%20st%C3%A4rker%20differenzierten%20Verg%C3%BCtungss%C3%A4tze%20sinken%20im%20Laufe%20der%20Jahre%2C%20was%20f%C3%BCr%20Kosteneffizienz%20der%20Erneuerbaren%20sorgt.%20Trittin%3A%20%22Es%20bleibt%20dabei%2C%20dass%20die%20F%C3%B6rderung%20erneuerbarer%20Energien%20einen%20durchschnittlichen%20Haushalt%20nur%20rund%201%20Euro%20im%20Monat%20kostet%20-%20so%20viel%20wie%20eine%20Kugel%20Eis.%22%0A%0AZiel%20des%20Gesetzes%20ist%20es%2C%20den%20Anteil%20der%20erneuerbaren%20Energien%20an%20der%20gesamten%20Stromversorgung%20auf%20mindestens%2012%2C5%20Prozent%20bis%202010%20und%20auf%20mindestens%2020%20Prozent%20bis%202020%20zu%20steigern.%20Damit%20dies%20gelingt%2C%20werden%20die%20Rahmenbedingungen%20f%C3%BCr%20die%20Einspeisung%2C%20%C3%9Cbertragung%20und%20Verteilung%20von%20Strom%20aus%20erneuerbaren%20Energien%20deutlich%20verbessert.%0A%0ADer%20wirksame%20Klimaschutz%20des%20EEG%20wird%20durch%20folgende%20Zahlen%20deutlich%3A%20Im%20Jahr%202003%20wurden%20etwa%2023%20Millionen%20Tonnen%20(t)%20Kohlendioxid%20infolge%20des%20EEG%20eingespart%2C%20durch%20die%20Nutzung%20der%20erneuerbaren%20Energien%20insgesamt%20(Strom%2C%20W%C3%A4rme%20und%20Treibstoffe)%20rund%2053%20Mio.%20t.%20F%C3%BCr%20das%20Jahr%202010%20wird%20gesch%C3%A4tzt%2C%20dass%20allein%20durch%20das%20EEG%20%C3%BCber%2040%20Mio.%20t%20CO2%20vermieden%20werden%2C%20insgesamt%20durch%20die%20Nutzung%20erneuerbarer%20Energien%20rund%2080%20Mio.%20t.%0A%0ADas%20neue%20EEG%20wird%20morgen%20im%20Bundesgesetzblatt%20verk%C3%BCndet%20(BGBl.%20I%2C%20S.%201918%20ff)%20und%20tritt%20damit%20am%201.%20August%202004%20in%20Kraft.%20Der%20Text%20des%20neuen%20EEG%20sowie%20die%20Begr%C3%BCndung%20und%20Hintergrundpapiere%20zur%20Erl%C3%A4uterung%20sind%20ab%20morgen%2C%2031.%20Juli%202004%2C%20unter%20www.erneuerbare-energien.de%20im%20Internet%20verf%C3%BCgbar.">translates</a> to "It remains the case that the promotion of renewable energy sources an average household costs only about 1 euro per month -. As much as a scoop of ice cream". Present tense, not future tense. All translations are open to interpretation but this one's pretty solid.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com.au/search?q=trittin+ice+cream+scoop&amp;oq=trittin+ice+cream+scoop&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57.2743j0j7&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;es_sm=93&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=trittin+ice+cream+scoop+2004+renewables">Search</a> this myth and you'll find it everywhere - the only person who actually fact-checked the claim was Craig Morris from Renewables International. It's been repeated, verbatim, for years now.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><b>"When you look at what's been happening in Germany, carbon emissions have been rising, because what's been happening is the gas-fired power stations, which are some of the lowest emitting forms of fossil fuel electricity production being closed, and Germany is burning more lignite,which is a very highly polluting form of coal, and the result is that German &nbsp;emissions are going up, so you have these very perverse outcomes when you intervene in electricity markets there are massive unintended unexpected consequences, and that is the road Australia will travel down. There will be massive unintended and unexpected consequences"</b></blockquote><br />This is completely false, but it's probably the least wrong out of all the examples so far. Germany's emissions are not rising, but they're certainly not on a clean downward trajectory. Craig Morris from Renewables International tells me this is due largely to a <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-03-28/europes-carbon-emissions-market-is-crashing">very low carbon price</a> - this means coal isn't priced according to its environmental impact, the public pays for pollution impacts through health and habitat, and renewables can't cut into their share.<br /><br />The chart below shows the fluctuations in German emissions over the past few years, again from <a href="https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-targets">Clean Energy Wire</a>:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q1ggVK-To7g/VgoveHd5WRI/AAAAAAACjjg/WkartdnvuFA/s1600/ghg-emissions-sector-1990-2014-update-mai-2015-uba.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="366" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q1ggVK-To7g/VgoveHd5WRI/AAAAAAACjjg/WkartdnvuFA/s640/ghg-emissions-sector-1990-2014-update-mai-2015-uba.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />Annett Meiritz'&nbsp;<a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/9/24/9366341/germany-coal-renewables-energiewende">article</a> on Vox is a great, detailed explainer of why German emissions have leveled off, rather than trending downwards. In short, good incentives for clean energy haven't been paired with strong emissions regulations, alongside Germany's nuclear shutdown. Darwall's arguments for inaction and ignorance are flawed in more ways than I can possibly describe, here.<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Germany's energy transition will necessarily attract misrepresentation and deception, or in this case, statistics that seem to have no relation to reality, in any way, at all. But this isn't really new. It happens in Australia, too - we're told that making our energy system safer and cleaner will result in an economic apocalypse.<br /><br />Our memories are short, too. When the carbon pricing mechanism failed to have any impact on the Australian economy, we'd forgotten by then that Abbott had promised entire cities would be wiped off the map. Those telling us we ought to feel fear, anxiety and trepidation about progressive energy policy get away with it, because no one holds them to account for their errors and misrepresentations.<br /><br />Presumably, Darwall's hoping the same applies to his efforts to induce paranoia around the modernisation of energy technology.Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-68136344106586755912015-09-24T22:25:00.003+10:002015-09-25T09:31:18.366+10:00We came close to vilifying climate scientists, based on bad journalismAustralia's conservative climate skeptic community is watching, with a now familiar sense of discomfort, as one of ex-PM Tony Abbott's policies collides awkwardly with actual public sentiment. It's a familiar pattern, now. Abbott's reputation is dominated by his fondness for 'captains calls' - ideas that (sometimes) appealed to his conservative base, but alienated everyone else, including many in his own party.<br /><br />This particular instance of retrospective awkwardness relates to the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/nationals-mp-george-christensen-calls-for-weather-bureau-inquiry-20141029-11dx63.html">obsession</a> of a notably precise demographic segment with conspiracy theories around the <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/">Bureau of Meteorology</a> faking climate science. During Abbott's administration, MPs, his business advisor and a slew of climate skeptic bloggers focused intensively on the Bureau of Meteorology's climate data.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Mr Christensen said the bureau has been involved in a process of "homogenisation" — changing raw data so the past appears cooler than the present. He will be seeking an inquiry into the bureau's conduct and the homogenisation process this week. "We have a scientific process being tainted at the source," he said"</blockquote><br />On Thursday the ABC <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-24/government-discussed-bom-investigation-over-climate-change/6799628">revealed</a>, in documents obtained through Freedom of Information laws, that this wasn't merely wishful thinking at the fringes of the government. Abbott's office pushed to see an inquiry into the Bureau's climate data become a reality, based almost exclusively on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-24/government-discussed-bom-investigation-over-climate-change/6799628">articles</a> in <i>The Australian</i>, most of which were penned by environment editor Graham Lloyd.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"A 2011 review found the Bureau's data and analysis methods met world's best practice but recommended a group be set up to review progress on the development and operation of the temperature data. The 2015 panel included eminent statisticians and members have told the ABC they were in no doubt that it was set up in response to the newspaper articles"</blockquote><br /><i>The Australian's</i> campaign against the Bureau of Meteorology, based on their unfamilarity with the science of&nbsp;<a href="https://theconversation.com/an-independent-inquiry-into-the-bureau-of-meteorology-bring-it-on-32692">data</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009">homogenisation</a>, ran for months. I made the table below by <a href="https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site%3Atheaustralian.com.au+%22bureau+of+meteorology%22+homogenisation&amp;oq=site%3Ath&amp;aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i58j69i59l3.1431j0j7&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;es_sm=93&amp;ie=UTF-8">searching</a> <i>The Australian</i>, with the term <i>* "Bureau of Meteorology" homogenisation *.</i>&nbsp;It gives you an idea of the column inches dedicated to this issue within the oz.<br /><br /><iframe height="1000" src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PR9mgmC-6KATBQ-0xgKUfGTZ1L2pPHFPdCVnv0Anx48/pubhtml?gid=0&amp;single=true&amp;widget=true&amp;headers=false" width="600"></iframe><br /><br />The articles came thick and fast from August to October last year, and from March to June this year. The majority were written by Graham Lloyd, the rest were op-eds by Maurice Newman, letters pages and editorials:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9PwfA-aj940/VgPeqd5O0PI/AAAAAAACjig/4ba38gycgp8/s1600/homog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9PwfA-aj940/VgPeqd5O0PI/AAAAAAACjig/4ba38gycgp8/s1600/homog.jpg" /></a></div><br />The articles present a flurry of claims issued by a collection of non-experts, each presented as authoritative sources on climate science. This quote, from an <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/boms-new-stations-explain-warming-in-australia/story-e6frg6xf-1227242193040">article</a> in February 2015, illustrates this well:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Almost half of the 20th-century warming for Australia’s nation­al average surface temperatures could be due to changes in the weather stations chosen for analysis, rather than changes in the climate, according to a submission to an independent review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s national records.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Merrick Thomson, a retired certified practising accountant, has asked the independent panel to investigate how and why stations were selected for inclusion to make up the national trend"</blockquote>See if you can spot what's wrong with those paragraphs.<br /><br />The brief prepared &nbsp;for the Prime Minister in September 2014, reported by the ABC, wanted to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/24/abbott-considered-investigation-into-exaggerated-bom-temperature-data?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">append</a> a Bureau review to a UN climate conference taskforce - this was knocked back by Hunt's office, and as has been said elsewhere, the Minister deserves&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/token?t=9uFKFQC92DGRce5EUDiC2-JyWZjhi4GWsPEU4Jzn47Q&amp;destination=node/1014946">credit</a> for this.<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">Environment Minister Greg Hunt: I have full confidence in their (Bureau of Meteorology) data and the idea was killed at that point. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BOM?src=hash">#BOM</a></div>— Lateline (@Lateline) <a href="https://twitter.com/Lateline/status/647012355180642305">September 24, 2015</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> As has also been stated elsewhere, the crusade was largely meaningless and symbolic - the BoM's data science is solid. It's the BoM's conclusions, not their methodology, that are the real motivation of this campaign.<br /><br />What really freaks me out about this particular instance is the fact that Tony Abbott saw the flurry of articles and was fully convinced of the need for an inquisition into organisations that accept climate science. Perhaps the logic was simple - "I know climate change isn't real. Therefore, this organisation has erred, and we need to know how".<br /><br />Okay, yes, it's not exactly unprecedented that media organisations can exert pressure on politicians. But this wasn't a campaign supported by the public. It was a faux crusade, and our then-PM accepted it without a single question.Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-29105799550695783672015-09-11T14:58:00.002+10:002015-09-11T15:45:56.875+10:00Our leaders are happy when they think about making foreigners suffer<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zEeYX69PxX4/VfJKMiraf_I/AAAAAAACjak/gIGCrOOVgi0/s1600/ughslake%2BGeorge%2BWind%2BFarm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zEeYX69PxX4/VfJKMiraf_I/AAAAAAACjak/gIGCrOOVgi0/s640/ughslake%2BGeorge%2BWind%2BFarm.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />There's a lot going on, in the image above.<br /><br />Australian flags stand tall and proud, towering above our leaders. Immigration Minister Dutton smiles, his posture confident and tall. Prime Minister Abbott, relaxed with his hands in his pockets, lets out a genuinely jubilant staccato laugh. Social Affairs Minister Morrison shrinks back, his hands nervously clasped, with an unambiguous sheen of worry on his face. This moment lingers for a couple of seconds - Dutton and Abbott are happy, and Morrison is not. Then, Morrison nervously mutters that there's a boom microphone above their heads.<br /><br />This exchange is remarkable - you can watch it below.<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="394" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rGMrGlAHUq0" width="700"></iframe><br /><br />In short, Federal Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, presuming the enormous boom mic directly above his head is either not on, or is not a microphone, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-11/dutton-overheard-joking-about-sea-levels-in-pacific-islands/6768324">quips joyfully</a> about the Pacific Islands losing all sense of the passage of time, due to rising sea levels - "time doesn't mean anything when you're about to have water lapping at your door". The microphone is quite large:<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">Boom microphone <a href="http://t.co/ERtAn3fsrC">pic.twitter.com/ERtAn3fsrC</a></div>— ellinghausen (@ellinghausen) <a href="https://twitter.com/ellinghausen/status/642175111383027712">September 11, 2015</a></blockquote><br />Yesterday, Abbott was in Port Moresby, meeting with Pacific Islands leaders, who directly expressed &nbsp;concern about their lives, and livelihoods, being <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-11/pacific-leaders-fail-to-reach-consensus-on-climate-change/6767038">threatened</a> by rising sea levels.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Pacific island nations had said the meeting was their last chance to highlight the threat they face from climate change, before the UN Climate Conference in Paris.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">The Australian response disappointed leaders who say some people are already being forced out of their homes by rising salinity, lack of water, or damage from severe storms or high tides"</blockquote><br />Kirabati President Anote Tong pleads with Australia to reduce its emissions, and lessen the threat faced by his nation:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I understand what's being said, that if they agree to those reductions in emissions, then it would hurt their industries and it would hurt their life, standard of living. But what I'm perhaps failing to communicate across is that while it will affect their standard of living, for us, it will affect the future of our people"</blockquote><br />Perhaps he's being diplomatic, but our efforts to reduce carbon emissions will have close to zero impact on our lives, and our standards of living. The carbon price, while it lasted, had <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/one-year-on-from-the-carbon-price-australias-emissions-rebound-is-clear-65643">no impact</a> on the economy, and the renewable energy target, had it remained unchanged or been expanded, would have <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/government-modelling-shows-power-prices-will-fall-if-ret-stays-20140624-zskbd.html">lowered</a> electricity prices. Breaking our addiction to coal will help us more than it hurts us.<br /><br />These <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/we-cannot-be-bought-on-climate-change-pacific-island-leader-warns-tony-abbott-20150908-gjhyv7.html">pleas</a> were spoken barely hours prior to the awkward exchange. Dutton's own bumbling incompetence at not seeing the enormous boom mic aside, it's shocking to see the openly rapturous laughter that spawns on Abbott's face when he hears the quip. It's one thing to deny climate science, or to propose an ineffective solution.<br /><br />But to sarcastically acknowledge the reality of the problem, and revel in the suffering caused by our own active contribution to climate change, is something else entirely. It's a sliver of insight into what seems to be an actively sinister mindset.<br /><br />It might just be some inherent incapacity for empathy. During that <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-wink-over-sex-worker-call-a-grubby-response-or-a-beatup-20140521-38o87.html">famous moment</a> when Abbott winked at a talkback host during a call from a pensioner who's working at a sex line to pay bills, he winks, grins, and then glances at the camera - you can see the precise moment when he realises he's being watched.<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="394" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yAYOMkevCFI" width="700"></iframe><br /><br />Dutton, who emitted the joke, and Abbott, whose cackle was immediate and totally real, have inadvertently revealed their default setting: open enjoyment of the suffering of foreign nations. This isn't just about a looming threat: people are <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/video/2011/10/26/effects-of-climate-change-in-kiribati-quick-facts">already suffering</a> as a consequence of global atmospheric and oceanic shifts.<br /><br />In Australia, we can currently afford to feel a roaring rush of elation, when we think about how our chosen technologies result in the direct suffering of other people. Racism probably plays a part in this - Dutton and Abbott wouldn't share scoffed lols about a predominately white nation suffering due to our own inaction. When the outcome of unchecked reliance on carbon-intensive fuels <a href="http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/">come back to bite</a>, we won't have time to dwell on irony, or introspection, or historical revision.<br /><br />This clip goes far beyond ideology, politics or the realities and perception of science. It simply felt like watching two men derive authentic delight, merely thinking about the suffering of foreigners.<br /><br />This is creates a third option around climate politics: not that the government denies climate science, nor that they advocate inaction. This tells us they might accept climate change is real, and that they rejoice at the thought of foreigners suffering as a consequence of our addiction to fossil fuels.Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-54700926351701137942015-09-07T12:57:00.000+10:002015-09-07T12:57:58.128+10:00Coal's problem isn't PR, it's coal Another day, another hashtag. It's <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&amp;vertical=default&amp;q=%23coalisamazing&amp;src=tyah">trending</a> right <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/business/energy/what-an-amazing-little-black-rock-did-to-social-media-20150906-gjgidz.html">now</a>. The lobby group for Australian extractive industries, the Minerals Council, yesterday launched another PR campaign to encourage a love for coal.<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">Coal powers 71% of all electricity on the grid - <a href="http://t.co/i5x3YOY7dd">http://t.co/i5x3YOY7dd</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/coal?src=hash">#coal</a> <a href="http://t.co/bSkuFQ3Plr">pic.twitter.com/bSkuFQ3Plr</a></div>— MineralsCouncilAust (@MineralsCouncil) <a href="https://twitter.com/MineralsCouncil/status/640338664568913920">September 6, 2015</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br /><br />The '<a href="http://littleblackrock.com.au/">Little black rock</a>' campaign follows the awkwardly misfired '<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/15/australians-for-coal-campaign-fires-up-protesters-instead-of-supporters">Australians for coal</a>' campaign last year. That effort, largely derided by the rather large number of Australians who are not for coal, highlighted something important: we don't like being told what to like. It also highlighted something confirmed by a raft of polling - we don't like coal, and we're keen to shift to an alternative:<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">1/5 - Personal views on gov't support for clean tech overwhelmingly prioritise RE over coal <a href="http://t.co/TiLWzA1sXX">http://t.co/TiLWzA1sXX</a> <a href="http://t.co/Oa6h5lnsQU">pic.twitter.com/Oa6h5lnsQU</a></div>— Ketan Joshi (@KetanJ0) <a href="https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/623341285273763840">July 21, 2015</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">3/5 A comparison shows the enormous disconnect b/w public support for RE and gov't love for coal. Gov't's on its own. <a href="http://t.co/bR8gR4uxej">pic.twitter.com/bR8gR4uxej</a></div>— Ketan Joshi (@KetanJ0) <a href="https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/623341866310762497">July 21, 2015</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br /><br />So, what's the argument behind the 'little black rock' campaign? To summarise the website's logic, it simply reasserts coal's current dominance, highlighting national and global statistics showing that we're currently deeply reliant on the outputs of this fuel type, and that shaking coal from its current position is going to be incredibly difficult. In the minds of those behind the campaign, we're enchanted by the thought of glancing upwards and seeing a light literally made of coal:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1qvytn83mLA/VezUPlhgOAI/AAAAAAACjXE/ZPOJFUJLZf4/s1600/coallight.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1qvytn83mLA/VezUPlhgOAI/AAAAAAACjXE/ZPOJFUJLZf4/s640/coallight.jpg" width="393" /></a></div><br />Energy blogger Keith Orchison is excited and <a href="http://www.coolibahconsulting.com.au/TiP/2015/09/06/mining-for-facts/">impressed</a> with the campaign. He writes that:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The Minerals Council has produced another two-page spread in its book that really should get some exposure.<br />“What,” it asks, “would it take to replace fossil fuels in the global power business?”<br />The answer, it asserts, is 95,900 square kilometres of solar technology projects (ie South Korea) or just over a million square kilometres of wind farm sites (eg South Australia) with 3.46 million turbines"<br />And, it points out, there 16 mined metals and minerals in a solar panel while “there is more than 220 tonnes of coal in every wind turbine” because every part of the structure depends on steel (including the steel-reinforced concrete in its base)."</blockquote><br />It would seem, largely, that the campaign is simply a rehash of a collection of tired, contradictory <a href="https://twitter.com/GalileoMovement/status/471138561110994944">memes</a> being constantly published and republished by the rapidly shrinking climate denial community. I think this is interesting.<br /><br />The argument that we should love coal because it's hard to replace all coal with renewable energy right now makes absolutely no sense, but it does highlight their thinking quite well: "You might hate me, but you can't get rid of me, so you better learn to love that your lights are made of coal".<br /><br />The same argument buttresses the 'wind turbines are made of coal' thing', despite the fact wind turbines pay back the emissions created in their manufacture many times over. "You can't get rid of us. See? Even your beloved wind turbines can't rid themselves of our constant dominance". As it happens, the net impact of a wind turbine,&nbsp;<i>including coal used for production</i>, is the&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/Sustainable2050/status/572856872010588160">removal</a>&nbsp;of 2,500 tonnes of coal, for each year of operation (62,500 tonnes over the lifespan of the machine).<br /><br />Similar confusion surrounds 'carbon capture and storage' (CCS). The brains behind the campaign &nbsp;dismiss renewable energy because it doesn't yet provide a significant percentage of total global electricity production. But the <i>Guardian</i> reports that <a href="http://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/180923/global-status-ccs-2014.pdf">CCS</a> is still a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/06/mining-industrys-new-coal-is-amazing-tv-ad-slammed-as-desperate">pipedream</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"However, there is only one CCS-enabled plant operational in the world, in Canada. In Australia, there is just one CCS project aimed at coal emissions in the pipeline, which may arrive at some point in the 2020s"</blockquote><br />The message behind the campaign, that we should ignore the promise of clean technology and credulously accept the promise of low-carbon coal, is conflicted, muddled and only operational inside the minds of people who already believe coal is the sole saviour of humanity.<br /><br />This isn't really a PR campaign. It's just a repetition of the self-assuring memes that dominate Australia's fossil fuel lobbies, climate change deniers, and the vast overlap between these two groups. The only people who don't recognise the contradictions and fallacies are those already convinced of the message.<br /><br />It won't shift public opinion because people care about electricity, not about coal. &nbsp;The watt-hours surging through their iPhones aren't branded. We won't manufacture some novel affection for coal, based solely on its market dominance or an extremely confused message about hating renewable technology but loving CCS technology. Campaigns in the US have taken&nbsp;<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2014/03/27/peabody-burson-marstellar-coal_n_5044962.html?ir=Australia">precisely</a>&nbsp;this format, and they've failed just as badly.<br /><br />The more I think about the logical heart of this campaign, that we ought to love something that is both dominant and harmful, the creepier it sounds, and I think the public recognise this, too. I wonder if this actually works against their cause. But again, that's not really the point, here. This campaign isn't designed by communicators or thinkers or PR professionals - it's designed by the industry, for the industry. It's therapeutic.<br /><br />Coal's problem is that when you burn it, you damage <a href="https://twitter.com/774melbourne/status/639572549198721024">human habitats</a> and economies and societies, through the emission and subsequent atmospheric lingering of greenhouse gases. The thin film of atmosphere on Earth is finely balanced, and it's violently skewed by the big numbers the Minerals Council stamp proudly on a lump of coal. We burn a lot of it, and that is a cause for concern, not celebration. PR campaigns might soothe the nervousness inherent in those championing the unending, eternal burning of coal to power humanity, but it won't fix coal's fatal flaw: it's a dangerous fuel, and we've got better alternatives ready to go.Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-46784971380811800212015-08-11T23:33:00.000+10:002015-08-11T23:34:07.669+10:00You can now get 'wind turbine syndrome' from solar panels and batteriesAs I've <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/technophobia-is-hatched-from-deep.html">expected for some time</a>, there's a new effort to create and propagate health fears around solar power, given the rapid decrease in costs, and the rising threat it poses to incumbent generators like coal and gas. It's going to take precisely the same shape as the campaign around wind farms, and unless we think deeply about the necessary ingredients for this type of techno-panic to flourish, it's going to last just as long, and cause just as much harm.<br /><br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />There's a looming and embryonic anti-solar campaign brewing. There's already an <a href="http://skepdic.com/emf.html">established industry of fear</a> around electromagnetism, so I thought the campaign would centre around this. But, as always, the ceiling of ludicrousness sits higher than I thought: there are now 'concerns' about noise emissions, specifically infrasound and low-frequency noise, from.........solar panels.<br /><br />Two proposed American solar projects, Tierra del Sol and Rugged Solar, have received expressions of 'concern' during <a href="http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/ceqa/Soitec-Solar-EIR.html">the planning process</a>, around the impacts of infrasound - very low frequency noise, inaudible to humans, allegedly the <a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=5&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CD4QFjAEahUKEwjAvJPM0KDHAhVDfaYKHVleA3c&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Fthe-real-science-on-wind-farms-noise-infrasound-and-health-43112&amp;ei=s7TJVYCXEsP6mQXZvI24Bw&amp;usg=AFQjCNHlRBWHEXxekKj3mT1sh2-OW0W5Jg&amp;sig2=iKaoT4CnSDcRXpi3qqZGXw&amp;bvm=bv.99804247,d.dGY">primary cause</a> of 'wind turbine syndrome'.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S0nM-W4fI_k/Vcmk0g295hI/AAAAAAACdDw/CJo37nXwknE/s1600/newberry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="422" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S0nM-W4fI_k/Vcmk0g295hI/AAAAAAACdDw/CJo37nXwknE/s640/newberry.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.desertdispatch.com/article/20130326/News/303269999">Newberry solar farm</a>&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table><br />A generic anti-renewable energy group (curiously named "Backcountry Against Dumps and Donna Tisdale") wield a broad array of documents explaining the dangers of solar power, and the Tierra del Sol project. <a href="http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/sites/eastcountymagazine.org/files/2015/January/Soltec%20Documant%20Volker%20Soitec%20FEIR%20PC%20comments%201-15-15.pdf">This letter</a>, penned in thick legalese, states that:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The FPEIR’s amended discussion of the Project’s low-frequency noise and infrasound (“ILFN”) emissions still fails. FPEIR 2.6-59 to 2.6-60; FPEIR Response to Comments O10_63 35 to O10_65. The conclusion that “no health effects are anticipated to occur due to low frequency noise associated with the Proposed Project” is based entirely on a court decision that is currently being appealed and is therefore not final, and subject to change. FPEIR 2.6-60. The County’s reliance on this non-scientific conclusion ignores the growing body of evidence that ILFN impacts human health.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Furthermore, the FPEIR completely fails to analyze the ILFN impacts from the newly added energy storage system that was not discussed in the DPEIR. FPEIR AIS.0-1, AIS.0-12 to AIS.0-14; FPEIR AIS 3 (Addendum: Acoustical Assessment Report), pp. 1-13. Acoustical engineer Rick James details additional County failures to analyze noise impacts from the energy storage system in his January 15, 2015 “Comments on Soitec Solar Acoustical Assessment Reports for Tierra del Sol and Rugged Solar Related to Proposed Energy Storage Facility,” which comments are incorporated fully by reference herein. In order to foster informed decision making, as CEQA requires, these impacts must be analyzed in detail, and the EIR recirculated for public review. CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088.5, 15144; Vineyard, 40 Cal.4th at 428"</blockquote><br />These 'concerns' are included in the standard shotgun-scatter of complaints about noise, fire risk, visual impact, cost, and a vast array of other complaints. Donna Tisdale, of that same group, has a generic <a href="http://www.pcl.org/projects/2013symposium/proceedings/Using_CEQA_for_a_Cleaner_Energy_Future.pdf">powerpoint presentation</a>, which includes ominous warnings about electromagnetic radiation from solar farms:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-x9sbe-QyyGE/VcmmDKdaIWI/AAAAAAACdEA/xdkll4Sqgsg/s1600/powerpoint2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="424" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-x9sbe-QyyGE/VcmmDKdaIWI/AAAAAAACdEA/xdkll4Sqgsg/s640/powerpoint2.jpg" width="640" /></a><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Wog8GP1ba1A/VcmmCBRGc5I/AAAAAAACdD4/tiFkPmC40LQ/s1600/powerpoint1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="478" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Wog8GP1ba1A/VcmmCBRGc5I/AAAAAAACdD4/tiFkPmC40LQ/s640/powerpoint1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />So, there you have it. Concerns, and a response to concerns. A technical consultant was hired to measure infrasound and low-frequency noise at a comparable solar facility - the Newberry solar project, pictured earlier. The technical addendum can be read <a href="http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Soitec-Documents/Final-EIR-Files/Appendix_9.0-3_LF%20Memo.pdf">here</a>, and the full report can be read here.<br /><br />I made their infrasound measurements into two charts - the first is 'weighted' - ie, put through a formula to properly reflect the response of the human ear, and the second is 'unweighted' - just the raw measurements of sound pressure:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s2itVjeEpQw/VcmreZkmAJI/AAAAAAACdEQ/6yN9Zq-1UOU/s1600/g-weighted.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s2itVjeEpQw/VcmreZkmAJI/AAAAAAACdEQ/6yN9Zq-1UOU/s1600/g-weighted.jpg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Fsj9GYKYL-U/Vcmr4bC6s4I/AAAAAAACdEg/YyMAlYNcbuA/s1600/unweighted.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="636" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Fsj9GYKYL-U/Vcmr4bC6s4I/AAAAAAACdEg/YyMAlYNcbuA/s640/unweighted.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />So, should anyone near a solar farm be quaking in fear? Well, no. The threshold of perception for infrasound is around 85 dBG (remember, that doesn't apply to the 'linear' version). As you can see in the first chart, no noise measurements go anywhere near that level. The report says:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The G-weighted noise measurement data in Table 1 indicates that measured ILFN equipment noise levels ranged from 55 dBG (Xantrex GT500 Inverter measurement 9, at 50 feet) to 62 dBG (transformer and cooling cabinet at 25 feet). When normalized to a distance of 50 feet assuming an attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance, however, the expected sound pressure level would be approximately 56 dBG. Thus, even at a relatively near distance (far nearer than a resident or other noise-sensitive receiver would be located), the G-weighted noise levels were found to be well under the audibility threshold of 85 dBG used by environmental protection agencies in Australia and Denmark"</blockquote><br />There's also the same exasperated, almost despairing repetition of the point that infrasound is basically everywhere:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Virtually every piece of mechanical equipment emits infrasound, including traffic, air<br />conditioners, refrigerators, surf, our own hearts and wind. Typical infrasound exposure levels for people who live in cities are approximately 50-65 dBG most of the time due to traffic, air conditioning, heating fans, subways and air traffic"</blockquote><br />And, despite the report, an acoustician (who's <a href="http://www.energyandpolicy.org/rick-james">previously expressed concern</a> about infrasound from wind turbines, and testified on behalf of wind farm opponents) has <a href="http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Soitec-Documents/Record-Documents/2015-01-30-StephanieClarke-VolkerLaw-Letter-Soitec-Solar-FPEIR-Attachment1-Comments-on-2013-14-Acoustical-Reports-Re-Energy-Storage-Facility.pdf">criticised the report</a>, and is attempting to raise further concerns about infrasound from this solar project.<br /><br />So why is the 'wind turbine syndrome' myth being applied to large-scale solar projects? The root cause is the same as with wind farms, and it has nothing to do with the technology, or actual measurements of noise. No quantity of measurements will ever be sufficient to convince solar farm opponents that the noise levels aren't a threat, and those who add a pseudoscientific sheen to the rhetoric of fear won't ever be required to bring forward evidence to support their claims.<br /><br />Essentially, it's about <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/australian-clean-energy-summit-2015.html">sentiment, and involvement, and control, and psychology</a>. We're complex, but in this regard, it's fairly easy to predict how we're going to respond to big projects that we feel left out of. What worries me here is that we let this pattern repeat, and that dedicated anti-renewable energy groups travel to projects, and fill them with fear and anxiety about renewable energy, whatever the type. If large-scale clean energy projects aren't build in a different way, we'll end up with a decade of 'solar power syndrome', filled with senate inquiries, stern and concerned health authorities, and a raft of public voices calling for more research.Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-48454734026504708132015-08-08T14:27:00.000+10:002015-08-08T14:27:00.336+10:00Climate Denial and Wind Turbine Syndrome: The Inquisition's Rejection of ScienceThere's plenty of time to dive into the variety of curiosities (and <a href="https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/628421639236009984">astonishing</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/628445778302730241">mistakes</a>) served up in the final <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2015/aug/07/ian-the-climate-denialist-potatos-inquiry-into-the-wind-turbine-inquiry?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Hootsuite">Senate Select Committee into Wind Turbines</a> <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Final_Report">report</a>, and the excellent and comprehensive <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Final%20Report/d01">dissenting report</a> from the sole Labor senator on the committee.<br /><br />For now, there's a bigger story at work here, and it ought to freak us out a bit. There are reasons normally-rational people will angrily reject good science, and credulously believe bad science. We twist ourselves into awkward, dissonant ideological formations, and it seems people who wield the most power are most likely to engage in this proud rejection of reality.<br /><br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I don't think I coined the 'inquisition' pun on the name of the Senate Wind Farm inquiry - curiously, it <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/senate-inquisition-blows-away-the-wind-farm-spin/story-e6frg6zo-1227285244092">turned up</a> in the only news outlet that's reported the findings of the senate committee in a positive light - <i>The Australian</i>:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GEengso5eek/VcM91plOhLI/AAAAAAACc7M/w_DdXpGDdxw/s1600/inquisition.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="504" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GEengso5eek/VcM91plOhLI/AAAAAAACc7M/w_DdXpGDdxw/s640/inquisition.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>It's interesting to note that the term 'inquisition' turns up a <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinion/blessed-are-the-sceptics/story-e6frgcko-1111116263665">less positive context</a> in <i>The Australian</i>, a few years in the past, around the topic of climate science:&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iY2azSHAFTA/VcNJyJPNCJI/AAAAAAACc7c/ihvqN2f7qkA/s1600/blessed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="550" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iY2azSHAFTA/VcNJyJPNCJI/AAAAAAACc7c/ihvqN2f7qkA/s640/blessed.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>The clips critique those who accept climate science, and demonises those skeptical of 'wind turbine syndrome'. These aren't contradictory position. Hypocritical, perhaps, but within the worldview that's held so closely by the outlet, both positions are perfectly rational.<br /><br />"Shouldn't we wait until the science is in on climate change, before we act?"<br /><br />*pause*<br /><br />"We shouldn't wait until the science is in, before we act on 'wind turbine syndrome'"<br /><br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /></div><div>Professor Simon Chapman, a public health professor at Sydney University, has taken a keen interest in the wind farms health issue, and managed to score a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Final%20Report/c02">dedicated section</a> in the final senate report, decrying his attitude and assertions. His responses to 'questions on notice' got <a href="http://junkee.com/wind-farm-lols/62664">some</a> <a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/professor-simon-chapman-delivers-withering-smack-down-to-wind-farm-opponents/story-fnjwvztl-1227469636271">media</a> attention, prompting the chair of the committee, Senator John Madigan, to <a href="http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/3259070/senate-wind-report-slammed-for-bias/">respond</a>:&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Senator Madigan said Professor Chapman’s answers to his questions on notice, including whether he knew Ararat Wind Farm would be near a prison, were also ideologically based. &nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">“Professor Chapman’s responses to questions on notice put to him by the Committee reflect his broader attitude to the Committee’s work,” he said. &nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">“This appears to be informed more by his ideological position on the question of human induced climate change than a serious consideration of the questions the committee was formed to consider.”"</blockquote></div><div>This seems to be a neat summary of the two presentations of the word 'inquisition' that we've seen presented above. Madigan consider's Chapman's views to be a symptom of his acceptance of the science of climate change. To accept the science of climate change is an ideological stance, and consequently, supporting technological solution to the threat of climate change is similarly tainted.<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />It would seem, then, that those who base their rejection and acceptance of scientific evidence on ideological drivers are bound to see other people as operating the same way, even when they're not.<br /><br />This goes some way to explaining why the report also dedicates many, many words to criticising the Australian Medical Association, and the National Health and Medical Research Council, whose respective scientists and medical professionals have both failed to find any evidence for 'wind turbine syndrome'.<br /><br />In the minds of the senators, this happens not because there is no evidence, but because the scientists are forever compromised by the acceptance of climate science. Their solution is simply to <a href="https://ama.com.au/ausmed/call-sideline-nhmrc-wind-farm-health-effects#.VcBI73hzXKQ.twitter">pick their own scientists</a>, presumably ones who they feel haven't been compromised by the acceptance of scientific evidence around climate change.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The Federal Government has been urged to sideline the nation’s peak medical research body and set up a stand-alone scientific committee to investigate the health effects of wind farm noise."</blockquote><br />We seem desensitised to this dichotomy, in which hyper-skepticism and hyper-credulity happily sit side by side. There's no evidence that could convince the senators that climate science is real, and no evidence is required to convince them that wind turbines cause harm.&nbsp;</div><div><br />This is the proud rejection of a technique we normally consider to be useful, in understanding the real world. It's anti-scientific only in the sense that evidence contradicting ideology is rejected. But it's the same cognitive machinery that causes people to rejection the science of vaccination, or the science of fluoridation, or to believe in chemtrails, or homeopathy. These beliefs actually hurt people.<br /><br />We allow the rejection of scientific evidence to flourish in politics. This is why our PM happily rejects climate science, and furrows his brow with concern about wind turbine syndrome. We're only one ideological twist away from a fresh torrent of preventable harms, spawned by this puerile attitude.&nbsp;</div>Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-63245048736087998372015-07-27T18:09:00.000+10:002015-07-27T18:22:02.007+10:00Please stop making things up about renewable energySome people have a big platform, and they use it to criticise renewable energy. Opinion writers, shock jocks, journalists, senators - they've all got full-time access to a huge number of ears and eyes, and they use that to full advantage.<br /><br />The thing is, when they say things they claim to be true things supported by numbers and evidence, they're often just.......not. I think it's weird, and interesting.<br /><h2>Alan Jones&nbsp;</h2><br />On rare occasions, those who loudly proclaim the children of their imagination as facts are questioned. During a debate on climate change, radio host Alan Jones nearly implodes with sheer outrage after he's asked if a paper he's brought up has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, below:<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hwIeMq-Ep0c" width="640"></iframe><br /><br />Last Monday, Alan Jones claimed on the ABC's Q and A panel show that:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Eighty per cent of Australian energy comes from coal, coal-fired power, and it’s about $79 a kilowatt hour,” he said. “Wind power is about $1502 a kilowatt hour"</blockquote><br />Mike Seccombe wrote a <a href="https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2015/07/25/the-true-cost-green-energy/14377464002171">good explanation</a> of precisely how wrong this in <i>The Saturday Paper</i>, as did <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-coal-fired-power-cost-79-kwh-and-wind-power-1502-kwh-44956">Dylan Mcconnell</a> in <i>The Conversation</i>, in which Jones admits to the error. To summarise, in a simple chart:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZAY7e1JFn2k/VbWLDNICPLI/AAAAAAACcvk/vyFcVJWzZdU/s1600/jonesschart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZAY7e1JFn2k/VbWLDNICPLI/AAAAAAACcvk/vyFcVJWzZdU/s640/jonesschart.jpg" width="542" /></a></div><br /><h2>Terry McCrann</h2><br />McCrann, a News Corp columnist, is growing more unique, as his level-headed colleagues quietly step back from angry dismissal of climate science. At some point, he'll be screaming his unintentionally comical diatribes at shoppers in Pitt St mall, but for now, he <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/climate-change-shortens-green-plan-not-worth-a-discussion/story-e6frg9k6-1227456077849">writes</a> in <i>The Australian</i>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"For the dirty little secret which nah-nah-nah denying Climate Change true believers refuse to face is that all renewable capacity has to be backed by continuing power stations which actually work: carbon-based coal or gas, or nuclear. Because when the wind don’t blow, and the sun don’t shine, the power don’t flow. Even across the vast span of southern Australia there are hours on end when we get not a single megawatt out of “all” those wind turbines"</blockquote><br />He's usually more wrong than this, as I've <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/anti-renewable-bingo-during-upcoming.html">written here before</a>. Some remnant spark of self-awareness was forcing him to be not too specific about exactly which time periods he means. Even then, we can actually check his claim that there are 'hours on end' when the total output of South Australian wind farms is at zero. Let's first compare the total number of hours, in the past 1.5 years, where SA wind has been greater than zero, and compare it to the total number of hours it's been at zero:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1CEADsJABcs/VbWbQ_JDLpI/AAAAAAACcv0/2vVh9iehIZk/s1600/sawindnonzero.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1CEADsJABcs/VbWbQ_JDLpI/AAAAAAACcv0/2vVh9iehIZk/s640/sawindnonzero.jpg" width="540" /></a></div>Oh dear. In the past 1.5 years, about 0.12% of the time has been comprised of a total wind output of zero in South Australia, or about sixteen hours out of thirteen thousand, one hundred and four. Sure, some of those hours were 'on end' - the longest stretch of zero output was 2.5 hours in April 2014 - but these incidents are absurdly rare, and McCrann seems to genuinely hold the belief they're representative of normal operation.<br /><br /><h2>Graham Lloyd</h2><br />Lloyd's featured a lot on this blog, because much of his coverage of renewable energy sways towards misunderstandings, cherry-picking and factual errors. His piece from the weekend has several, but one caught my eye:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"In addition to guaranteed above-markets rates, intermittency helps explain why the addition of large scale renewables can lead to higher prices for electricity consumers.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">“When you study the states of Australia that have had dramatic increases in their household power bills in recent years you will find a direct correlation to the number of wind turbines that have been connected to the grid in those states,” independent senator John Maddigan told the Senate last month. “You will find the same correlation in European countries.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">This is irrespective of whether wholesale electricity prices fall as a result of additional renewable energy forcing its way into an already oversupplied market.<br />Indeed, Germany has some of the lowest wholesale electricity prices in Europe but some of the highest retail prices.</blockquote><br />There's rather a lot to break down, even in this small section of Lloyd's article. The whole thing has an incredibly high concentration of misunderstanding and outright falsehoods - it would take weeks to debunk it. Simply, is there a 'direct correlation' between number of turbines, and high power bills?<br /><div><br /></div><div><iframe height="700" src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ioCoAXIwW3GMjhacj2nSHW2QoJbEGgHBgh2eQJ6A-V4/pubhtml?gid=0&amp;single=true&amp;widget=true&amp;headers=false" width="600"></iframe></div><div><br /></div>----------------------------------------<br /><br />So why is wrongness so prevalent in content that's churned out to be critical of renewable energy? And, is it just as prevalent in content that's out there to defend it? I can't really answer the second question, mainly because I'm responsible for a fair chunk of it, and so I wouldn't exactly be an impartial judge.<br /><br />I honestly don't really have any theories. There seems to be an ever-present assumption that if we publicly declare something to be factual - as in, a thing that has been checked thoroughly and is likely to be true - that we won't be asked to support that claim with references or sources. I might just be over-attributing this to renewable energy, because it's my thing.<br /><br />Sometimes, fact-checkers and wonks (like me, and <i>Media Watch</i>, and <i>The Conversation</i> and <i>ABC Fact Check</i>) tend to dive in and explain the wrongness. These media outlets have a decent platform, so I think they're doing good work. But I wonder if we should be encouraging a more wide-ranging shift in attitude: it's not okay to vomit out some numerical feelings-garbage, without expecting that you're going to be pulled up on it <i>immediately</i>.<br /><br />Regardless, this is something that really happens quite a lot. For added fun, it's worth casually asking people to justify their claims. Really, it's great. I highly recommend it. Patrick Moore, who features in the video up top, is filmed here during the making of a documentary, being asked to stand behind something he's said. It's...fun. Watch it.<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ovKw6YjqSfM" width="640"></iframe><br />Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-70259481849178784142015-07-23T16:46:00.000+10:002015-07-23T16:46:37.953+10:00Panic stations: The renewable energy target fear campaign has already failedFor most of this year, <i>The Australian</i> has been publishing a <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/the-australians-wind-turbine-health.html">near-weekly update</a> on why people living near wind turbines ought to fear for their lives, and why they should seek scientific medical information from their environment editor, rather than from the <a href="https://ama.com.au/position-statement/wind-farms-and-health-2014">medical</a> <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/health-topics/wind-farms-and-human-health">community</a>.<br /><br />After opposition leader Bill Shorten announced his intention to propose an ambition for <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/22/australian-labor-party-pledge-50-renewables-2030/">50% renewable energy</a> in our electricity generation mix by 2030, <i>The Australian</i> shifted from 'wind turbine syndrome' to new format of panic.<br /><br />In today's paper, there were twelve articles, a cartoon, and a front page plastered with a headline that is literally the repetition of a primary-school-grade slur used by Abbott (who admitted the phrase was '<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bronwyn-bishop-ruling-on-bill-shorten-nickname-sparks-political-row-and-labor-dissent-motion/story-fn59niix-1226758758423">unparliamentary'</a>, but was defended by Speaker <a href="https://www.google.com.au/search?q=bronwyn+bishop&amp;oq=bronwyn+bishop&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59j69i61j69i60j69i61.2183j0j4&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;es_sm=0&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=bronwyn+bishop&amp;tbm=nws">Bronwyn Bishop</a>).<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ri3THHEllJw/VbBdDh5IddI/AAAAAAACcug/GK24wNX7Hzk/s1600/IMAG1760.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ri3THHEllJw/VbBdDh5IddI/AAAAAAACcug/GK24wNX7Hzk/s640/IMAG1760.jpg" width="361" /></a></div><br /><br />Here's a list of articles in <i>The Australian</i> today, with a word count and quote from each (if I missed any, let me know):<br /><br /><div><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/renewable-energy-flings-of-desire-do-not-soar-over-truth/story-e6frg6zo-1227453112230">Renewable energy: Flings of desire do not soar over truth</a> - Graham Lloyd - 427 words <br /><br /><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/labors-astonishing-renewable-energy-target-turnaround/story-fn8qlm5e-1227452680640">Labor’s astonishing renewable energy target turnaround</a> - Chris Kenny - 704 words<br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwjtwNio4u_GAhXImZQKHSXkDSM&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fopinion%2Feditorials%2Flabors-loony-turn-on-renewable-energy-target%2Fstory-e6frg71x-1227453030801&amp;ei=nRawVa3-I8iz0gSlyLeYAg&amp;usg=AFQjCNGR6SCWsmLVXX8W3dYzksYNjPnjDw&amp;sig2=t0WgGqHvY6gb7sPWKGwgug&amp;bvm=bv.98197061,d.dGo">Labor’s loony turn on renewable energy target</a> - Editorial - 671 words<br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwiZl-O44u_GAhWEGJQKHbUdDf0&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fbusiness%2Fmining-energy%2Frenewable-energy-glut-of-supply-will-raise-prices%2Fstory-e6frg9df-1227453225244&amp;ei=vxawVdm7E4Sx0AS1u7ToDw&amp;usg=AFQjCNEa0WgY8k8KttA1cgj1gl7K4XdZiA&amp;sig2=EDnirb542Q15uLKBf3ecmQ&amp;bvm=bv.98197061,d.dGo">Renewable energy: glut of supply will raise prices</a> - Adam Creighton - 572 words<br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwjk-_7E6-_GAhUCKJQKHcKeCq8&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnational-affairs%2Fclimate%2Frenewable-energy-hopes-scaled-back-in-britain-germany-and-us%2Fstory-e6frg6xf-1227453225730&amp;ei=SCCwVeS3NILQ0ATCvar4Cg&amp;usg=AFQjCNHO2Qvyh_bW4dBzDN8BuXPJm0PxiQ&amp;sig2=YSOvmcKmDkmagJpYfzBfnw&amp;bvm=bv.98197061,d.dGo">World turns different shade of green as costs bite</a> - Graham Lloyd - 656 words<br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwitg5aa4-_GAhUKoJQKHRKeDZY&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnational-affairs%2Fpolicy%2Fbill-shorten-didnt-take-new-energy-target-to-cabinet%2Fstory-fn9hlxnq-1227453101272&amp;ei=ixewVe2RI4rA0gSSvLawCQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNE46eK6y9YEESd4UJVih8VyUgwqVQ&amp;sig2=4Wq_3_zawi4cq8lIqrSMuQ&amp;bvm=bv.98197061,d.dGo">Bill Shorten didn’t take new energy target to cabinet</a> - Joe Kelly and Rosie Lewis - 469 words<br /><br /><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/bill-shorten-doing-best-to-forget-burning-ret-issues/story-e6frgd0x-1227453117800">Bill Shorten doing best to forget burning RET issues</a> - David Uren - 321 words<br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CB4QqQIwAGoVChMI9OXzq-vvxgIVAaWUCh1uIAmi&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fopinion%2Fcolumnists%2Fcarbon-tax-blunders-continue-as-do-the-risks%2Fstory-e6frg75f-1227453219791&amp;ei=FCCwVfSLD4HK0gTuwKSQCg&amp;usg=AFQjCNEtDC0nV5IIy66ZqZeYa5HYodgKkQ&amp;sig2=qtvY1_XYLEHk8bSB31JfEQ&amp;bvm=bv.98197061,d.dGo">Carbon blunders continue, as do the risks</a> - Dennis Shanahan - 503 words<br /><br /><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/power-prices-certain-to-rise-under-alps-increased-ret/story-e6frg6xf-1227453109563">Power prices ‘certain to rise’ under ALP’s increased RET</a> Annabel Hepworth - 493 words<br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwj3z7SR5u_GAhVBm5QKHSj6BPI&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fbusiness%2Fmining-energy%2Flabor-power-play-bill-shortens-carbon-reboot%2Fstory-e6frg9df-1227453226540&amp;ei=nhqwVfeIH8G20gSo9JOQDw&amp;usg=AFQjCNFBDnXiOpXzkAw4SXPThFrt0qHHxQ&amp;sig2=FyXCnucO8zeOv0arFibk5Q&amp;bvm=bv.98197061,d.dGo">Labor power play: Bill Shorten’s carbon reboot</a> - Stefanie Balogh - 927 words<br /><br /><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/politics-news/ive-got-carbon-tax-to-thank-for-my-job-michelle-landry/story-fn59nqld-1227453104544">I’ve got carbon tax to thank for my job: Michelle Landry</a> - [no byline] - 452 words <br /><br /><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/politics-news/labor-party-must-remember-coalworkers-built-it/story-fn59nqld-1227453107709">‘Labor Party must remember coalworkers built it’</a> - Rick Morton - 378 words<br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;"><br /></div>So, that's a total of 6,573 words dedicated to building the argument that a renewable energy target of 50% is terrible.<br /><br />Standing awkwardly in a bustling crowd of panic, fury and keywords like 'jobs' and 'billions' was a single admission of the actual price impact of a 50% by 2030 scenario, buried in Adam Creighton's article:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Labor’s policy would increase an average household’s electricity prices by $4 a year in today’s dollars between 2023 to 2030, according to modelling by Frontier Economics."</blockquote><div><br /></div>Creighton's begrudging admission is mentioned in passing on page 6 of the paper. The issue here is the impost of updating our energy system on retail electricity prices, as subtly delineated by <i>The Australian'</i>s nuanced front-page headline. So....what's this modelling that Creighton refers to?<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">This is page 6 of <a href="https://twitter.com/australian">@australian</a>. I've highlighted where the actual $ impact of 50% by 2030 is stated. <a href="http://t.co/OtHOAQT8WD">pic.twitter.com/OtHOAQT8WD</a></div>— Ketan Joshi (@KetanJ0) <a href="https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/624027608963899392">July 23, 2015</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br /><br />Apparently, the modelling is by <i>Frontier Economics</i>. Their <a href="http://www.aemc.gov.au/getattachment/8b827a21-1030-4202-89e2-8f2191bfb402//About-Us/Resources/Corporate-publications/Submission-to-the-Review-of-the-Renewable-Energy-T.aspx">RET review modelling</a> doesn't mention a 50% RE scenario. They mention a 50% renewable energy scenario in passing, in a <a href="https://www.frontier-economics.com/documents/2014/04/efficient-regime-for-the-expansion-of-renewable-energies-in-germany-frontier-report.pdf">study</a> that models European energy:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Our quantitative analysis shows that it is possible for single countries to pursue their own development objectives without unduly burdening energy consumers. For example, our analysis of the German market in a scenario where renewables reach a 50% share of gross power consumption by 2050 confirms that any additional costs will remain manageable"</blockquote><br />The <i>Minerals Council</i>, Australia's chief industry group representing coal and gas, are <a href="http://www.donotlink.com/g1ed">perturbed</a> by the suggestion, and warn, as they did with the current RET and with carbon pricing, that everything we love will be eviscerated, if we adopt new technologies for generating energy:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"It is not yet clear that the Opposition is proposing an increase in the mandatory target to 50 per cent. If it does, the subsidies to renewables will double or even triple by 2030, at extraordinary cost to energy consumers"</blockquote><br />They're very carefully avoiding explaining exactly <i>how much </i>the 'cost' will be - instead using terms like 'extraordinary'. Analysis by Hugh Saddler in <i>The Conversation</i> <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-would-labors-50-renewable-energy-policy-cost-australian-households-44997">estimates</a>&nbsp;a small impact:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"If implementation of a 50% renewable electricity target is accompanied by policies like [consumption reduction initiatives], households could find themselves paying no more for electricity each year after 2030 than they are paying today"</blockquote><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-48xQVOD3kZM/VbBnIHlG0oI/AAAAAAACcu0/K9SL1qXLmus/s1600/image-20150722-31237-12cpmvj.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="392" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-48xQVOD3kZM/VbBnIHlG0oI/AAAAAAACcu0/K9SL1qXLmus/s640/image-20150722-31237-12cpmvj.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"&nbsp;If you want to estimate how much extra Labor’s policy might cost you, look at the difference between the light blue and dark blue bars for your state" - <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-would-labors-50-renewable-energy-policy-cost-australian-households-44997">Hugh Saddler</a></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Tristan Edis, an analyst at Business Spectator, <a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/7/23/renewable-energy/cost-labors-50-renewables-target-%E2%80%93-less-6-bill">guesses</a> around $6 per bill. He also compares his estimates to the impact of a 15% GST on electricity prices:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Dt7JHYNfbQY/VbBzFCevuEI/AAAAAAACcvE/NTxw-UrCjLw/s1600/EdisChrat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="290" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Dt7JHYNfbQY/VbBzFCevuEI/AAAAAAACcvE/NTxw-UrCjLw/s640/EdisChrat.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />The reason these estimates differ so greatly with regards to the household impost of a 50% by 2030 renewable energy target is because we really just don't know what mix of policy mechanisms are going to be used to meet that goal (assuming it's agreed to at the Labor party's national conference on the weekend).<br /><br />It may not take the form of an adjustment to our current Renewable Energy Target scheme. Whatever form it takes, it's understandably difficult to model something that doesn't exist yet.<br /><br />Soon, we'll have another round of <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/modelling-wars-mould-data-kill-renewables-82732">warring models</a>. As we've seen today, media outlets opposed to new energy technology will use tactics like vague, non-specific warnings and declarations of total cost (rather than cost per household), in the hope of producing big, scary-sounding numbers.<br /><br />But here's the thing - filling the void that will exist between now and when this ambition is fleshed out with the furious tornado of fear offered in today's <i>Australian</i> isn't actually going to work. Abbott has tried already - repeating endlessly, to this day, that renewable energy causes 'significant price pressure'. He came to believe it himself - the Prime Minister's office commissioned a RET review led by a climate skeptic. Even then, it found the RET scheme lowers electricity bills in the long run.<br /><br />The arguments in today's edition of <i>The Australian</i> are weak and watery, and I don't doubt many of the authors felt a profound wave of awkwardness writing them. The opponents of renewable energy have thrown their cards on the table. But they've played this hand before, and they walked out embarrassed. Chances are, it's going to happen again.&nbsp;</div>Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-61137249484353339502015-07-17T18:13:00.000+10:002015-07-17T18:13:00.893+10:00Australian Clean Energy Summit 2015 - Science, Sentiment and Control in Clean EnergyMy presentation for the 2015 Clean Energy Summit is below, including some words. There was some <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/control-could-reduce-turbine-illness/story-e6frfku9-1227444525752">media coverage</a>, too, which is nice.<br /><br />------------------------<br /><br />I’d like to start with a quick anecdote I heard this morning. The Codrington Gardens B&amp;B is Codrington’s #1 accommodation, and it’s about 2.1 kilometres away from the nearest turbine at Pacific Hydro’s Codrington wind farm.<br /><br />A friend on Twitter told me about a story retold by the owner, about an irate guest who, in the morning after a stay at the B&amp;B, issued a complaint about wind farm noise keeping him up overnight. In the morning, after breakfast, the owner went outside with the guest, who pointed out the noise. The owner responded by pointing out that specific noise was actually the sound of the ocean. Without missing a beat, the guest responded by saying ‘Well, if I’d known that, I would have been able to sleep”<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fMzHSVYCDPw/VaiSbDzhpJI/AAAAAAACcpU/tUUbEvl5n0I/s1600/Slide2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fMzHSVYCDPw/VaiSbDzhpJI/AAAAAAACcpU/tUUbEvl5n0I/s640/Slide2.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br />Our reactions to the presence of wind farms is a little surprising, at times. When you tunnel into the history of our reactions to a variety of technological changes, it’s clear that the pattern we’ve seen so far with wind farms is precisely what you’d expect to materialise, considering the way we executed the development of these big, new clean energy machines.<br /><br />I’d like to make a case for a developmental philosophy that pre-empts this pattern of response. One that assumes human reactions to technology are a certainty, not an anomaly. We’ve been stuck for so long in a world of discourse where ludicrousness has no ceiling. The claimed impacts of wind farms escalate into increasing absurdity, as you would have seen in First Dog’s talk. But when you listen with both ears to our detractors, as was suggested last night, we find there are answers and solutions that move past the endless scratching at the corners of scientific evidence, and into areas where both communities and clean tech providers reap enormous benefits.<br /><br />Let’s dig into the tunnel of technological fear, and look some examples of human reactions to new machines that we live next to<br /><br />Right now, we’re exposed a range of ultra high frequency and super high frequency wireless networks. There is a considerable range of individuals and groups across the world who consider this exposure to be a major risk to human health. The arguments are pretty consistent among these groups and individuals. ‘The science just isn’t in yet, we need to take a precautionary approach, and I feel sick near wifi routers’. Professor Ian Lowe at the Griffith School of Natural Sciences points out that<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">“Belief in electromagnetic hypersensitivity is the natural outcome of rational human behaviour. The human brain always looks for cause and effect relationships. If you get a headache while sitting near a router, you may attribute the headache to that router. Confirmation bias will see that belief grow over time, until the belief becomes so strong that it actually manifests a headache. But it's the fear of the router that's the problem, rather than the router itself”</blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-53FEJkSsDCM/VaiSbUyDItI/AAAAAAACcpg/aa91xejWm2k/s1600/Slide3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-53FEJkSsDCM/VaiSbUyDItI/AAAAAAACcpg/aa91xejWm2k/s640/Slide3.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br />When you test people who claim to be sensitive to wifi in a lab, they’re generally unable to detect the presence of WiFi signals when the experimenter switches the signal on and off. What we learn from this is that you don’t need a politically motivated fear campaign to see the emergence of health fears around technology. Wireless networking isn’t impacting the profits of political donors, no think tanks are pushing out reports against wifi, and conservative columnists don’t obsess over it. This is something that happens because we’re human. It’s inaccurate to say people who experience this are deluded, or irrational, or uneducated. This is how the electrified meat between our ears is geared to respond to technological change.<br /><br />A similar phenomenon emerged around the mandatory rollout of smart meters in Victoria. There are now several examples of people claiming symptomatic experiences that are identical to the claims that exist around wireless networking. But in the case of smart meters, a political party was formed - called “People power victoria no smart meters”.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-58-c4CjHegk/VaiSb8CnruI/AAAAAAACcpo/CFU9MWM3v0E/s1600/Slide4.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-58-c4CjHegk/VaiSb8CnruI/AAAAAAACcpo/CFU9MWM3v0E/s640/Slide4.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br />Part of their charter included pushing for the right for people to “to reject any object or technology being installed on or near their premises if they have reasonable concerns about its possible effect on their health, privacy or wellbeing”. They didn’t win any seats in the 2014 state election, but they won 1,375 first preference votes.<br /><br />The backlash against Victorian smart meters, predicated on the theory that they’re likely to hurt human beings, is a clear example of the role of control in how we perceive risk. Research shows that the less control we have over a change in our environment, the more likely we are to overestimate the risk of a technology and see a bizarre, ludicrous mix of claims. The rollout of smart meters in New South Wales will be optional - my bet is that we will see a near-zero emergence of health fears in New South Wales.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TD1Mc78X7hY/VaiSb279iqI/AAAAAAACcps/XufRVSzF8CA/s1600/Slide5.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TD1Mc78X7hY/VaiSb279iqI/AAAAAAACcps/XufRVSzF8CA/s640/Slide5.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br />Compare, on this slide, the purple bubble for plane crashes, and the light blue bubble for car accidents. If we got to hold the wheel when flying in a plane, would our perception of risk be more closely aligned to the actual danger? Conversely, will self-driving cars lead to a significantly higher perception of risk, alongside big improvements in safety?<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xvofKD7dJpg/VaiScR4IHjI/AAAAAAACcp0/OLrdKbc9t0w/s1600/Slide6.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xvofKD7dJpg/VaiScR4IHjI/AAAAAAACcp0/OLrdKbc9t0w/s640/Slide6.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br />On a side note, it’s worth comparing our collective perception of the risk of climate change versus the risk of terrorism, compared to the likelihood that either of these things are going to kill or injure us. Think about which risk has dominated media coverage and government priorities over the past year, and think about how wind farms might sit on this chart.<br /><br />In 2009, a couple living near a planned wind farm in New York coined the term ‘wind turbine syndrome’, and paired the phrase with a self-published book detailing a self-selected sample of phone interviews, with no control group.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-32OkmdB5JnM/VaiScmJkILI/AAAAAAACcqQ/C-11i3EWuPg/s1600/Slide7.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-32OkmdB5JnM/VaiScmJkILI/AAAAAAACcqQ/C-11i3EWuPg/s640/Slide7.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br />Since then, the phenomenon has been adopted by political and local wind farm opponents, but roundly rejected by a cluster of scientific reviews, acoustic studies, provocation tests, health authority reviews, legal cases and some preliminary large-scale epidemiological studies.<br /><br />A cursory examination of ‘wind turbine syndrome’ tells us that we’re seeing the same phenomenon we’ve seen with wifi and smart meters. The actual symptoms are nearly identical, including many instances where complaints are issued despite nearby wind turbines being inoperative.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-32nVGJ66Hfw/VaiSc7LMoBI/AAAAAAACcqM/he94bkZcZ0o/s1600/Slide8.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-32nVGJ66Hfw/VaiSc7LMoBI/AAAAAAACcqM/he94bkZcZ0o/s640/Slide8.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br />So the answer should be simple, right? Give people control, let them have influence over the project and the over-perception of risk should abate. This is the nexus of why the development of clean energy needs to incorporate community engagement and ownership schemes - people react badly when they’re left out of major changes to the environment. This needs to change.<br /><br />It seems that some of this logic was at play when Pacific Hydro, one of Australia’s leaders in wind farm community engagement, let residents near the Cape Bridgewater wind farm nominate their own acoustician, to compare noise emissions from the wind farm to their own symptomatic experiences. I followed the release of this report, and subsequent media coverage, very closely.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jwdkTlboMkM/VaiSdOy8ZsI/AAAAAAACcqI/Wr-w8v74csc/s1600/Slide9.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jwdkTlboMkM/VaiSdOy8ZsI/AAAAAAACcqI/Wr-w8v74csc/s640/Slide9.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br />The report’s conclusions, based on a sample of six residents already opposed to the project, void of any tests of statistical significance and not published in a blinded peer review scientific journal of any kind, was euphemistically labelled a ‘pilot study’, rather than a bad study, by the recent senate wind farm inquiry, and was explicitly used to justify the creation of a wind farm commissioner and new scientific bodies examining wind turbine syndrome, in addition to several months of media coverage in a range of local and national media outlets.<br /><br />Why did efforts to restore control, in good faith, back to the community result in a bad outcome for the community, for the industry and for the scientific discourse? It’s because the myth of wind turbine syndrome survives through bad science - studies claim to detect the presence of a malicious disease, but are so ridden with confounders and bias that they could be detecting anything at all. We’re going to be in this position many times in the future, as we feel our way forward, but we can’t stop discovering and testing and exploring, because the future of the industry depends entirely on whether the technologies are accepted by communities. Anti-wind activism does impact investment, and has a real financial impact on the wind industry.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ha7swkpYFJE/VaiSaTiqXBI/AAAAAAACcqE/GOeMIv09qHU/s1600/Slide10.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ha7swkpYFJE/VaiSaTiqXBI/AAAAAAACcqE/GOeMIv09qHU/s640/Slide10.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br />The people whose live next to economy-sustaining technology need to be deeply involved from the outset. Already, wind farm land owners speak up when the leader of the country expresses his desire to destroy an Australian technology due solely to his internal aesthetic machinations. Imagine entire communities rising to defend clean energy projects, when they come under attack from proponents of decades old machines running on dinosaur juice. We’ve already seen this phenomenon at work with solar citizens, who are very skilled at empowering household solar owners to speak up in defense of their technology. Benefit sharing schemes can be tuned and tweaked to suit communities. The financial benefits for clean energy companies will be realised through increased investor confidence in projects that don’t incur lengthy planning cases.<br /><br />We’ve been living too long in a world where there is no upper limit to absurd, nonscientific medical diagnoses propagated by anti-windfarm groups and small pockets in the media. If open the doors to communities and let them become participants in this crazy world of decarbonisation, then we’ll find ourselves able to fend off the daily onslaught of attacks on wind farm investment.Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-80045312061433775812015-07-15T16:04:00.000+10:002015-07-15T16:04:05.234+10:00Most sequels suck - "Carbon Tax Death Apocalypse 2" will probably fizzleI was working in the operations room for Capital Wind Farm the day Julia Gillard visited. It was the same day a now-infamous anti-carbon tax rally was held on the lawns of parliament house, during which Tony Abbott proudly stood among a collection of sexist, conspiratorial, denialist signs, most of which ferociously attacked Gillard on a personal level.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0mklxY297iY/VaWl8hDfpmI/AAAAAAACcnk/XYbq_quJBds/s1600/r738936_6026149.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="424" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0mklxY297iY/VaWl8hDfpmI/AAAAAAACcnk/XYbq_quJBds/s640/r738936_6026149.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />Abbott would not have clambered into power had it not been the carbon pricing mechanism, and his successful campaign against the policy. His slogans worked; people hated the policy and rewarded him for his simplistic but effective campaign.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />A few years on, and there have been some interesting developments.<br /><br />Namely:<br /><br />- After the carbon price was scrapped, emissions <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/05/carbon-tax-repeal-sparks-jump-in-australias-electricity-emissions">rose</a>&nbsp;quickly. This was partly due to hydro altering their generation initially, but the trend has continued. Brown coal is up, black coal is straight and renewables try their best to keep up. This was widely reported in the media, and people were vaguely embarrassed.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CqPIYY6b7E8/VaWnZQTMnzI/AAAAAAACcns/uHDVCISA-UY/s1600/rsz_screen_shot_2015-03-04_at_21212_pm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="499" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CqPIYY6b7E8/VaWnZQTMnzI/AAAAAAACcns/uHDVCISA-UY/s640/rsz_screen_shot_2015-03-04_at_21212_pm.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/coal-generation-hits-2-year-high-as-rising-demand-drives-emissions-increase-85578">By Hugh Saddler at Renew Economy</a></td></tr></tbody></table><br />- No one feels they got the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/will-the-carbon-tax-repeal-really-mean-we-get-back-550-a-year/story-e6frfmci-1226967556477">$550</a> they were promised by Tony Abbott. The reduction in electricity price that came about due to the repeal of carbon pricing has already been dwarfed by the rising costs of network infrastructure, as shown in the AEMC's latest report - the removal of this little grey rectangle of lines is the thing that flung our PM into power. Dwell on that, for a second:<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pT57mf04AMM/VaWpU8eMG5I/AAAAAAACcn4/R3-AJPx7EY0/s1600/CDpHoh9W8AAte8i.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pT57mf04AMM/VaWpU8eMG5I/AAAAAAACcn4/R3-AJPx7EY0/s640/CDpHoh9W8AAte8i.png" width="586" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From <a href="http://www.aemc.gov.au/getattachment/ae5d0665-7300-4a0d-b3b2-bd42d82cf737/2014-Residential-Electricity-Price-Trends-report.aspx#page=197">here</a></td></tr></tbody></table><br />- Climate change denial has weakened in Australia, alongside increased support for climate change policy and renewable energy, as <a href="http://www.essentialvision.com.au/climate-change-11">shown</a> in yesterday's Essential report:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gtuLGI4n9OM/VaXd5ChJO5I/AAAAAAACcoI/8GawH4PjN2M/s1600/climatechart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="440" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gtuLGI4n9OM/VaXd5ChJO5I/AAAAAAACcoI/8GawH4PjN2M/s640/climatechart.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />Murdoch news outlets put their foot on the gas this morning when &nbsp;Labor plans for an emissions trading scheme were leaked to News Limited:<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en">Bill Shorten's secret plan to bring back the carbon tax exposed. He really is just a carbon copy of Rudd &amp; Gillard. <a href="http://t.co/Uu4wRHFzy3">pic.twitter.com/Uu4wRHFzy3</a></div>— Greg Hunt (@GregHuntMP) <a href="https://twitter.com/GregHuntMP/status/621182789874925568">July 15, 2015</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />Abbott's done the same, bringing his sloganeering <a href="http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/07/15/09/54/abbott-slams-labor-over-carbon-tax-re-run">skills</a> into gear:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ogBmKV3GCV8/VaXwctgm4iI/AAAAAAACcoY/qsgiZ9V0UcU/s1600/triplewhammy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ogBmKV3GCV8/VaXwctgm4iI/AAAAAAACcoY/qsgiZ9V0UcU/s400/triplewhammy.jpg" width="386" /></a></div><br />Tony Abbott attempted to use his anti-carbon-tax power-price-paranoia tactic with the Renewable Energy Target, repeating consistently that the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/renewable-energy-target-faces-cut-by-abbott-20131218-2zlgs.html">RET causes power prices to rise</a>. When he commissioned a review by a climate skeptic, the modelers found that scrapping the scheme would actually <a href="https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/614-repeal-lret">result in higher prices</a> for households and businesses.<br /><br /><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="https://twitter.com/KetanJ0">@KetanJ0</a> Seems like he’s bashing madly on any topic that’s worked for him before, but nothing is working</div>— Will J Grant (@willozap) <a href="https://twitter.com/willozap/status/621105766808752128">July 14, 2015</a></blockquote><br />I don't think Abbott has the magic mix of ingredients needed to get the same frothy brew of panic that carried him into power in 2013. The sexists are presumably less enraged by Shorten than Gillard, so they're out. The climate change deniers have grown small in numbers, and fallen out of favour with the media - Abbott's less likely to be seen in front of Agenda 21 New World Order signs than back in 2013. If he is, he'll get called out on it, this time.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l3t2kyCU-8Q/VaX0Ol2NKXI/AAAAAAACcok/r5OlFjgXJfs/s1600/CIJym-iUkAA8gzz.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l3t2kyCU-8Q/VaX0Ol2NKXI/AAAAAAACcok/r5OlFjgXJfs/s400/CIJym-iUkAA8gzz.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br />I suspect, at the very least, this won't work as well as they hope. As with most sequels (except for Terminator 2 and Aliens), this one is going to try and recreate the same magical mix that brought success for # 1 - it'll probably work a little bit, but nowhere near as well as the original. With any luck, it'll be more <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0270846/">Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2</a></i> than <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103064/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Terminator 2:Judgement Day</a></i>.<br /><br />For a great explainer on this, read Tom Arup's piece in the SMH, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/carbon-tax-zombies-direct-action-emissions-trading-and-the-carbon-tax-explained-20150715-11ebgx">here</a>. And join me in hoping that the sequel really does suck. Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-61222484560068325992015-07-13T00:09:00.000+10:002015-07-13T07:32:20.944+10:00The clean tech revolution comes to luxury chaffeur services...I'm recently back from a brief holiday in New Zealand, and our last stop was in Christchurch, a city damaged quite badly by an earthquake in 2011. It's five years on, and the streets of the central city are &nbsp;relatively quiet at night, save for the occasional pop-up disco platform and a sea of silent, bright orange cones.<br /><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aYFmkAppdAU/VaJjzYleHOI/AAAAAAACcmc/TfMvTDNJFdc/s1600/IMG_6143.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aYFmkAppdAU/VaJjzYleHOI/AAAAAAACcmc/TfMvTDNJFdc/s640/IMG_6143.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The gap-filler disco, near our hotel</td></tr></tbody></table><div><div><br /></div><div>The rejuvenation of the city's centre is focused on public transport, walking and cycling, but for now, a whole stack of businesses are located just outside the city - not walkable, but very easy to access by car.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MfP6GEX8oJo/VaJlkFe_NnI/AAAAAAACcmo/5wv__DNmT5E/s1600/IMG_6260.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MfP6GEX8oJo/VaJlkFe_NnI/AAAAAAACcmo/5wv__DNmT5E/s640/IMG_6260.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">At the <a href="http://www.canterburymuseum.com/quakecity/">Quake City</a> museum</td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></div><div><br />I think it's an important reminder of the need for a diverse range of machines we can use to transport ourselves from one spot to another, but also the importance of ensuring none of them link us to a reliance on carbon-intensive fuel types.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>My wife and I very graciously accepted an offer for a complimentary trip back from the airport to our pad in a limo service called <a href="https://www.evoke.limo/">Evoke</a>. Our driver, Justin, was great. <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com.au/you-can-now-hitch-a-lift-to-sydney-airport-in-a-tesla-2015-7">Evoke</a> rely solely on a fleet of truly incredible Tesla Model S <a href="https://www.evoke.limo/tesla_model_s">spaceships</a> running on clean energy:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"To reduce our carbon footprint, Evoke vehicles are charged using Tesla’s supercharger network in Sydney, which is carbon offset. When we are not supercharging, we use 100 per cent GreenPower"</blockquote><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XmbqPUjdsuU/VaJpHPO36tI/AAAAAAACcm0/TkR5XbU0ZwQ/s1600/IMG_6261.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XmbqPUjdsuU/VaJpHPO36tI/AAAAAAACcm0/TkR5XbU0ZwQ/s640/IMG_6261.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Jq-3K1-CTNY/VaJpacD2scI/AAAAAAACcm8/8ecV-7NlR00/s1600/IMG_6262.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Jq-3K1-CTNY/VaJpacD2scI/AAAAAAACcm8/8ecV-7NlR00/s640/IMG_6262.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>Electric vehicles will obviously play a big role in transport, in the very near future. That there's already limo services that capture the market springing up from real excitement around this technology makes me really happy.<br /><br />The car is such a pleasure to ride in, but I also know that the electricity it's running on has been offset through generation from clean energy sources. In the near future, it'll come directly from black panels pointed at the 'handy nuclear fusion reactor in the sky' (Elon Musk's description of the sun).&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1pKqzuaymiM/VaJrOPIgj1I/AAAAAAACcnI/Sytj5Ft5oYI/s1600/IMG_6280.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1pKqzuaymiM/VaJrOPIgj1I/AAAAAAACcnI/Sytj5Ft5oYI/s640/IMG_6280.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-f5ls62znB2I/VaJrw6Y4zBI/AAAAAAACcnQ/k5rwmYS0rgQ/s1600/IMG_6285.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-f5ls62znB2I/VaJrw6Y4zBI/AAAAAAACcnQ/k5rwmYS0rgQ/s640/IMG_6285.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>I recorded a short Periscope from the inside of the car, too, including some smooth jazz:</div><div><br /></div><div><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oSKO-ZKlwH8" width="640"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><div>...and a ridiculous Vine<br /><br /><iframe frameborder="0" height="600" src="https://vine.co/v/evXrU9Dv2XE/embed/simple" width="600"></iframe><script src="https://platform.vine.co/static/scripts/embed.js"></script><br /><br />We're going to see electric vehicles trickling in to our line of sight with increasing regularity. There will be a point when seeing one in a queue of cars isn't interesting or curious - it's the norm. Evoke cleverly captures our excitement about what is a genuinely incredible piece of engineering - the sheer excitement of rocking around in a spaceship is enough to justify the occasional trip in a Tesla.<br /><br />But for me, it's a pretty clear sign that the electric car is starting to slot neatly in to the gaps in our transport systems. Blended with stuff like self-driving cars, it's going to change the way we move ourselves from one place to another. You become hyper-aware of how important this change is, when you visit a city that's in a constant state of flux, like Christchurch. And, it means we don't need to carry around a carbon-intensive, super-heavy explosion machine in the front of our cars.<br /><br />Cheers to Evoke and to my wonderful wife for taking some splendid photos. And if you get a chance, book a Tesla. It's...really quite something.&nbsp;</div>Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-7545497989142468712015-06-27T20:49:00.002+10:002015-06-27T21:22:42.991+10:00No, That Mining Industry Report Doesn't Mean Wind Turbines Are Hazardous<div>Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor at <i>The Australian</i>, shuns the idea of reporting information along the lines of scientific evidence. His latest piece (essentially now a weekly column on 'wind turbine syndrome') presents the viewpoint that people are sick due to the presence of wind turbines as a medical diagnosis, along with bits and pieces of scientific research.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>If this happened in a medical clinic, the health professional would have their licence revoked. On the pages of a national newspaper, it's seemingly okay. It's worth breaking down his <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/real-concerns-about-turbines-left-blowing-in-the-wind/story-e6frg6zo-1227416997780">latest piece</a> a little bit, to get a better understanding of why this approach gets traction.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>-----------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Each morning fine-wool grower Ann Gardner broadcasts her wind farm woes to an unreceptive world. Politicians, shock jocks, journalists and anyone Gardner hopes will listen are included as recipients of uncomfortable missives that outline the “torture” of living next door to Australia’s biggest wind farm at Macarthur, Victoria. Gardner is used to being ignored, unlike her neighbours, Hamish and Anna Officer, who routinely are quoted as model wind farm devotees"</blockquote><div><br /></div><div>The idea that wind farm opponents are ignored is pretty strange. The Prime Minister has adopted their cause, alongside the tenth government inquiry in to wind farms designed to allow opponents to air their grievances. A new government <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-19/madigan-defends-wind-farm-commissioner-proposal/6557634">role</a> has been created solely for the purpose of receiving wind farm complaints, and money is being <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/renewable-energy-target-slashed-wind-farm-commissioner-to-be-established-20150623-ghvxl3.html">re-directed</a> towards scientists who will be tasked with testing their claims.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Ann Gardner has received <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/blow-to-fine-living-off-the-sheeps-back/story-e6frg6nf-1226141242208">full</a> write-ups in <i>The Australian</i>, and has been quoted in media <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3338297.htm">here</a>, <a href="http://www.standard.net.au/story/2725397/moyne-knocks-back-wind-farm-noise-report/">here</a>, <a href="http://www.standard.net.au/story/2716486/huge-legal-bill-looms-if-shire-ignores-new-wind-farm-noise-report-doukas-says/">here</a>, <a href="http://www.standard.net.au/story/2343130/moynes-13m-wind-farm-roads-compo-pothole/">here</a>, <a href="http://www.2gb.com/article/health-impact-wind-farms">here</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.energybusinessnews.com.au/business/regulation-policy/senate-wind-farm-inquiry-a-witch-hunt-says-cec/">here</a>, just to provide a few examples.</div><div><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Gardner contends the failure to report the plight of the Gares or the full picture for the Officers is typical of the one-sided treatment the wind turbine issue has received. She says much of the media has shown itself willing to misconstrue findings from the National Health and Medical Research Council and suggest research had cleared wind turbines of ill effects. In fact, the NHMRC said only limited, poor-quality research was available and the issue of wind farms and health remained an open scientific question."</blockquote><div><br /></div><div>This is a fairly common assertion - the creation of a false dichotomy. It's why the question 'Yeah, but you support more research, don't you?' is raised so frequently by wind farm opponents, as if the existence of scientific investigation is enough to incriminate wind energy. It's satisfying for someone who's faced with the task of asserting that wind turbines are dangerous, without having any evidence to back it up.&nbsp;</div><div></div><div><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"And a new study by researchers from Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine have found “the odds of being annoyed appear significantly increased by wind turbine noise”. The research, published in Environment International, has found wind turbine noise significantly increases the odds of experiencing sleep disturbance, and results in lower quality of life scores."</blockquote><div><br /></div><div>Another common tactic is to frequently switch between hypotheses.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Wind farm opponents simultaneously claim that audible noises causes stress, and that inaudible infrasound causes health impacts. The first claim has some truth to it; and it's used as a wedge to support the second claim.<br /><br />They're both very different, but as you can see above, Lloyd sees no fault in using evidence for one to support the other. Lloyd intentionally excludes some <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412015001051">key sentences</a> from the study's authors, who write that:&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Further, visual perception of wind turbine generators was associated with greater frequency of reported negative health effects. In conclusion, there is some evidence that exposure to wind turbine noise is associated with increased odds of annoyance and sleep problems. Individual attitudes could influence the type of response to noise from wind turbines"</blockquote><div><br /></div><div>Lloyd left those words out for a reason, I suspect. Lloyd goes on:&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Publicly, the wind industry has an army of supporters ever ready to rubbish claims that wind farms can have any effect on health. But there is evidence the wind industry has known about the impact of infra­sound for more than two decades"</blockquote><div><br /></div><div>Lloyd repeats the myth that NASA found that wind turbines cause sickness, and that the wind industry has conspired to bury the research. <a href="http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/the-lamentable-tale-of-anachronistic.html">It's absurd</a>. And, on he goes....</div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"A federal Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism report into airborne contaminants, noise and vibration, published in October 2009, says “sound in the frequency range below 20 hertz is normally defined as ‘infrasound’ and can be heard (or felt) as a pulsating sensation and/or pressure on the ears or chest”.......The report does not refer to wind turbines but it accurately describes many of the complaints that are being made"</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div>It'd be weird, in any other field, to claim a technology is dangerous, and then provide supporting evidence that literally fails to mention the technology. The reason this is acceptable, here, is based on the assumption that any exposure to infrasound is dangerous, regardless of the amplitude or the frequency.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Again, the things that Lloyd chooses to <a href="http://www.industry.gov.au/resource/Documents/LPSDP/AirborneContaminantsNoiseVibrationHandbook_web.pdf">exclude</a> are the most telling. The following is from the last paragraph in the section he quotes:&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Factors such as the attitude or mood of the person, his or her environment, the degree of arousal or distraction experienced, and whether the noise is felt to be an invasion of privacy or disruptive, will dictate personal response. This is important for shift workers who sleep during the day. The predictability of noise and how frequently it occurs will also influence the reaction"</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div>In fact, the <a href="http://www.industry.gov.au/resource/Documents/LPSDP/AirborneContaminantsNoiseVibrationHandbook_web.pdf">handbook</a> is actually about the mining industry:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"LEADING PRACTICE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR THE MINING INDUSTRY"</blockquote><div><br /></div><div>As it happens, blasting the ground open with explosives produces more noise than operating a wind turbine:&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ElL6Mu03DA4/VY53ZKadLHI/AAAAAAACclw/rkB2kSD0RX8/s1600/noiseevents.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ElL6Mu03DA4/VY53ZKadLHI/AAAAAAACclw/rkB2kSD0RX8/s1600/noiseevents.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From <a href="http://www.industry.gov.au/resource/Documents/LPSDP/AirborneContaminantsNoiseVibrationHandbook_web.pdf#page=72">page 72</a></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jqbw5Q9Hs2A/VY53eoYKaUI/AAAAAAACcl4/bbda2tPOiWA/s1600/Wind-turbine-solar-inverter-noise-level.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="448" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jqbw5Q9Hs2A/VY53eoYKaUI/AAAAAAACcl4/bbda2tPOiWA/s640/Wind-turbine-solar-inverter-noise-level.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>----------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div>This mish-mash of bad science is presented as a diagnosis - the individual he quotes is sick because of wind turbines, not because of some other medical issue. There's no doubt. It's a key assumption in the piece. It's simple to presume that Lloyd sees no fault in doing so, considering there's been a constant stream of this for several years.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>This, in his eyes, is a 'balanced' approach - the exclusion of all individuals, reports and experts who might fail to support his diagnosis - even to the extent that mining industry reports are being used to implicate wind energy.&nbsp;</div>Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8484636121528981760.post-89322857732777795162015-06-21T12:48:00.002+10:002015-06-21T13:02:17.963+10:00The Australian's 'Wind Turbine Health Researcher': not a health researcher It's been an absurd couple of weeks for the wind energy industry. There's been a daily barrage of pseudoscience, feelings, antagonism and rage from small-in-numbers but strong-in-feelings opponents of renewable energy in Australia.<br /><br />A few of them hold the highest office in the country, which isn't helpful.<br /><br />Largely, the discourse has centred around anecdotal reports of wind farm impacts - and the creation of a new wind farm watchdog.<br /><br />Here's a screenshot from an article published in <i>The Australian</i>:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q0a6SpZERXA/VYVGeWLtsMI/AAAAAAACcj0/b0GHILkSr5M/s1600/CH0KQieUsAAjo2G.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q0a6SpZERXA/VYVGeWLtsMI/AAAAAAACcj0/b0GHILkSr5M/s640/CH0KQieUsAAjo2G.png" width="556" /></a></div><br />The <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Au73EozSjET19QbUd0bTNyZ1E/edit">article</a> features an interview with Mary Morris who, as the captions tell us, is a 'wind turbine health researcher':<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">'Mary Morris, who conducted the only Australian study into wind turbine health impacts accepted by the National Health and Medical Research Council, welcomed the government’s draft proposal to the crossbench. “It’s long overdue that there should be a proper mechanism for dealing with complaints and for conducting more rigorous testing at wind farms,” Ms Morris said'</blockquote>On the 18th of June (the day before), Morris also featured in an <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/tougher-scrutiny-on-wind-farming-after-crossbench-talks/story-e6frg6xf-1227403048162">article</a> by Graham Lloyd:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N3p3VxUVqOk/VYYoInQpPWI/AAAAAAACckE/vudEpVRcRZE/s1600/morris.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N3p3VxUVqOk/VYYoInQpPWI/AAAAAAACckE/vudEpVRcRZE/s400/morris.jpg" width="365" /></a></div><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Mary Morris, who conducted one of the only studies accepted by the National Health and Medical Research Council, said she would welcome any undertakings by the federal government to increase supervision"</blockquote><br />She seems like an expert source. She conducted a study in to health impacts, and that study was 'accepted' by the NHMRC. Out of curiosity, let's see what the NHMRC found from her study, when they did a <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh54_systematic_review_of_the_human_health_effects_of_wind_farms_december_2013_amended_february_2015.pdf">systematic review</a> of existing evidence, on <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh54_systematic_review_of_the_human_health_effects_of_wind_farms_december_2013_amended_february_2015.pdf#page=221">page 221</a>:<br /><br />-----------------------------------------<br /><br /><b>Morris, M 2012. ‘Waterloo Wind Farm survey’.&nbsp;Available at: &lt;http://www.wind-watch.org/news/&gt;.</b><br /><div><br /></div><b>Affiliation/source of funds [2]</b><br />‘Mid North Wind Farm Awareness’ member<br /><br /><b>Internal Validity:&nbsp;</b><br /><b>Confounding subscale [13]</b><br /><b>Comment on sources of confounding:</b><br />No details on responder characteristics or plausible confounders e.g.socioeconomic status, economic factors, age, gender, chronic disease and risk factors for chronic disease, occupation, education, employment, urbanisation, background noise, wind turbine visibility and terrain.<br /><br /><b>Bias subscale [14]</b><br /><b>Comment on sources of bias:</b><br />There was no clear definition of what ‘affected by noise’ included. Self-reporting survey, hence no independent confirmation of claimed adverse effects. Differences between responders and non-responders were not assessed. Study intent was not masked for survey recipients.<br /><br /><b>Reporting subscale [17]</b><br /><b>Comment on quality of reporting:</b><br />There was no clear description of main outcomes, participant characteristics, exposure level or any differences &nbsp;between responders and non-responders<br /><br /><b>Chance [18]&nbsp;</b><br />No data analysis.<br /><br /><b>Overall quality assessment (descriptive) [19]&nbsp;</b><br />On the basis of the Internal Validity assessment made above, and the detailed critical appraisal of the study given in Table 7, this study is considered poor qualityfor the purpose of this review.<br />There is a high risk of exposure misclassification (time and personal characteristics criteria were notwell-defined), recallbias (study intent not masked), sample selection bias(40% response rate), confounding (no statistical adjustments were made), and outcome misclassification (non-validated survey questions)<br /><br /><b>Comments [28]</b><br />The study was quasi-scientific and of poor quality. The study design,poor execution and analysis prevent any firm conclusions from being drawn. The study has limited capacity to inform the assessment of wind turbine noise as a cause of adverse health effects.<br /><br />-----------------------------------------<br /><br />Not only was the study incredibly poor quality, the author is a wind farm opponent, and the study is only available from an anti-wind website.<br /><br />Incidentally, the 'health researcher' in question also garnered some media coverage when sending out emails <a href="http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/green-groups-cry-foul-over-email-to-generate-fake-complaints-against-waterloo-wind-farm-in-south-australia/story-e6fredel-1226489395372">urging people to complain about wind farms</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">'In the email, Ms Morris, who lives 17km from the wind farm, said Goyder Council had said it had received no written noise or health complaints regarding the Waterloo wind farm.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">It asked residents to send in a written complaint to both the Goyder and Clare and Gilbert Valley councils, outlining the impact of the wind farm on their health and hearing.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"All it has to be is a simple letter stating that the noise and vibration is causing a serious disturbance to sleep and rest, and/or that people are becoming sick - mention elderly and frail people AND children as well, especially if this applies to you," the email said.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"If you have already sent in a letter, send again with a cover note that you wish your submission to be considered as a formal complaint about the effects of the Waterloo wind farm."'</blockquote><br />When it comes to giving bad science the veneer of veracity, this is a pretty common tactic - the usage of 'fake experts'. It's prevalent in climate change denial, but there are many examples of it in the 'wind turbine syndrome' world as well. As <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html">Skeptic Science</a> outlines:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This tactic is often complemented by denigration of established experts, seeking to discredit their work. Tobacco denialists have frequently attacked Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, for his exposure of tobacco industry tactics, labelling his research 'junk science'."</blockquote><br />It's one thing to leave out vital information, like what the NHMRC said about the quality of Morris' survey. But it's another thing entirely to label her an authoritative source. That goes well beyond the ways that bias tweaks everything we write - that's an outright falsehood.<br /><br />Sure, it's necessary, when you're trying to give a manufactured disease some seemingly scientific substance, but it's also going to result in real harm to people seeking authoritative medical advice. We're going to see a lot more of this, in the coming weeks - each instance will feature a different page from the pseudoscience playbook.Ketanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14304050938020117205noreply@blogger.com5